2008/10/21 Vincent Torri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> speaking of that, as there are other Windows library, not related to gtk,
> that may use libjpeg, tiff, png, etc..., woud it be possible to install them
> in a drectory not specific to GTK (like in Program Files/Common
> Files/generic, or something li
On Tue, 21 Oct 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/10/21 Tor Lillqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
But I admit I don't have any *really* strong preference. If it really
is so that the majority of people who distribute GTK+ apps on Windows
would prefer that the pixbuf loaders were separate DLLs I can
2008/10/21 Tor Lillqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> But I admit I don't have any *really* strong preference. If it really
> is so that the majority of people who distribute GTK+ apps on Windows
> would prefer that the pixbuf loaders were separate DLLs I can return
> to that. Is there anybody out there
> Sorry (just out of ignorance): who or what forced you to revert to
> the libjpeg- and libtiff-based loaders?
The GDI+ ones don't work... They work for "small" files, but if the
file size (not the image size!) is larger than a limit that seems to
be around 60 KB, loading fails... See bug #552678.
On Tue, 21 Oct 2008, Tor Lillqvist wrote:
> >> Was there a compelling reason for this reversion?
>
> Not really. As has already been said, if/when the GDI+ -based
> pixbuf loaders would be used, then it would hopefully be 100%
> clear that it makes sense to build them as built-in in the
> gdk-
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 7:20 PM, Tor Lillqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Was there a compelling reason for this reversion?
>
> Not really. As has already been said, if/when the GDI+ -based pixbuf
> loaders would be used, then it would hopefully be 100% clear that it
> makes sense to build them
>> Was there a compelling reason for this reversion?
Not really. As has already been said, if/when the GDI+ -based pixbuf
loaders would be used, then it would hopefully be 100% clear that it
makes sense to build them as built-in in the gdk-pixbuf DLL. But now
when I was forced to revert to the lib
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 4:57 PM, Allin Cottrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Oct 2008, Daniel Atallah wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 12:01 PM, Allin Cottrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > But I see that the current GTK 2.14.4 package
>> > ( http://www.gtk.org/download-windows.html
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 4:57 PM, Allin Cottrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Oct 2008, Daniel Atallah wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 12:01 PM, Allin Cottrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > But I see that the current GTK 2.14.4 package
>> > ( http://www.gtk.org/download-windows.html
On Mon, 20 Oct 2008, Daniel Atallah wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 12:01 PM, Allin Cottrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > But I see that the current GTK 2.14.4 package
> > ( http://www.gtk.org/download-windows.html ) has reverted to a
> > monolithic build, so that a gtk app won't start without
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 12:01 PM, Allin Cottrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A while back some app developers who have need of GTK+ on MS
> Windows, yet whose apps use only a subset of the available
> image-loaders, requested that the build of the Windows packages be
> made modular (as it was in t
11 matches
Mail list logo
