On Thu, 2010-09-23 at 23:38 -0400, Allin Cottrell wrote:
> > > Requested 'glib-2.0 >= 2.25.10' but version of GLib is 2.24.2
> > > Requested 'gdk-pixbuf-2.0 >= 2.21.0' but version of GdkPixbuf is
> > > 2.20.1
>
> OK, thanks, I can wait. But can I ask what the rationale is for
> splitting off gdk-
On Thu, 23 Sep 2010, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> I've released a stable gdk-pixbuf 2.22 a few days ago, and a stable
> glib 2.26 should be out before the end of the week.
>
> On 9/23/10, Allin Cottrell wrote:
> >
> > If this is intended to be a "latest stable" release it seems to me
> > a bug that i
I've released a stable gdk-pixbuf 2.22 a few days ago, and a stable
glib 2.26 should be out before the end of the week.
On 9/23/10, Allin Cottrell wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Sep 2010, Matthias Clasen wrote:
>
>> GTK+ 2.22.0 is now available for download...
>
> If this is intended to be a "latest stable"
On Thu, 23 Sep 2010, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> GTK+ 2.22.0 is now available for download...
If this is intended to be a "latest stable" release it seems to me
a bug that it depends on "unstable" GLib (and also apparently on a
self-referential GdkPixbuf update). Here are the errors I'm
getting from
GTK+ 2.22.0 is now available for download at:
http://download.gnome.org/sources/gtk+/2.22/
ftp://ftp.gtk.org/pub/gtk/2.22/
sha256 sums:
d9522c80d4b8a954f7474e32bd5a99ba3051996f1c4681426db5f79a1c1b4602 gtk
+-2.22.0.tar.bz2
d0247ca6619a0ec2fa3f2f042a7d3a72fbacec4f5ad72f67aafb0f5f03be3c0b gtk
+-
