There was some mishap with the 2.12.6 tarballs which ended up twice as
large as expected. Here is a 2.12.7 release that has no changes besides
the correctly sized tarballs.
http://download.gnome.org/sources/gtk+/2.12
57132c4a921ef00e241a0fc991787556 gtk+-2.12.7.tar.bz2
445bdcf6c89acaa30ae80e9a3b
2008-01-29, 21:39 -0500, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> On Jan 29, 2008 8:48 PM, Matthias Clasen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > >
> > > I don't see anything in this message that would explain why the
> > > 2.12.6 tarball is over twice the size of the three previous
> > > releases (31M for the tar.bz2)
On Jan 29, 2008 8:48 PM, Matthias Clasen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I don't see anything in this message that would explain why the
> > 2.12.6 tarball is over twice the size of the three previous
> > releases (31M for the tar.bz2). What's going on with that?
>
> That is certainly not inte
Hi,
here's another patch.
It adds debug messages using DirectFB's debugging system which is part of
libdirect,
the base library of DirectFB, the dlib, how you like it :-D
I know there's g_log, but if I'm debugging a problem in GdkDirectFB, I need its
debug
messages in line with the lower leve
On Jan 29, 2008 8:23 PM, Allin Cottrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Jan 2008, Matthias Clasen wrote:
>
> > GTK+ 2.12.6 is now available for download at:
> >
> > http://ftp.gnome.org/pub/GNOME/sources/gtk+/2.12/
> >
> > gtk+-2.12.6.tar.bz2 md5sum: c870a51276f7ad6eee94ab313a9e833a
> >
On Tue, 29 Jan 2008, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> GTK+ 2.12.6 is now available for download at:
>
> http://ftp.gnome.org/pub/GNOME/sources/gtk+/2.12/
>
> gtk+-2.12.6.tar.bz2 md5sum: c870a51276f7ad6eee94ab313a9e833a
> gtk+-2.12.6.tar.gzmd5sum: c90e918ac3ef77f5474dadbc57453893
>
> This is a bu
Claudio Saavedra wrote:
> El dom, 27-01-2008 a las 23:37 +, Martyn Russell escribió:
>> The plan is to upload these pages on Tuesday sometime. If anyone has
>> any issues to take up before then, let me know.
>
> A small correction. In documentation.html
>
> "GTK+ 2.0 Tree View
> This tutorial
Paul Pogonyshev wrote:
> Hi,
Hi,
> Sorry, I noticed the discussion about new gtk.org design but didn't
> follow it. The only thing I don't like in new design is fixed to
> 700px page width. I think that goes against GTK+ friendliness to
> different font size etc. :) I'd like to see sth. like 7
Hi,
Sorry, I noticed the discussion about new gtk.org design but didn't
follow it. The only thing I don't like in new design is fixed to
700px page width. I think that goes against GTK+ friendliness to
different font size etc. :) I'd like to see sth. like 70ex or
40em whatever.
Sorry if it's t
Hi,
this is the first of more patches coming up these days.
It fixes various warnings, some errors, has some cleanups and a change that's
worth to mention:
@@ -2818,10 +2818,10 @@
}
static void
-gdk_window_impl_directfb_invalidate_maybe_recurse (GdkPaintable *paintable,
-
> does struct timeval use 32 or 64 bit fields on win64?
Is uses "long", so 32 bits.
--tml
___
gtk-devel-list mailing list
gtk-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
El dom, 27-01-2008 a las 23:37 +, Martyn Russell escribió:
>
> The plan is to upload these pages on Tuesday sometime. If anyone has
> any issues to take up before then, let me know.
A small correction. In documentation.html
"GTK+ 2.0 Tree View
This tutorial covers the GtkTreeView and was wr
Hi Martyn,
Martyn Russell schrieb:
> Hi,
>
> This evening, we discovered http://www.gtk.org/gtk-doc/ and it looks
> like it is holding the project files for gtk-doc.
>
> Does anyone know anything about this? Tim and I don't.
> Do we need to keep it? If so, we can revamp these pages too.
> Who ma
Hi,
I started working on the new design for gtk.org last April and tonight
the new pages were uploaded and we now have a spiffing new look which I
am really happy with.
I want to thank Andreas Nilsson for helping out with the design and Tim
Janik for help with the final touches in getting the pag
Hi,
This evening, we discovered http://www.gtk.org/gtk-doc/ and it looks
like it is holding the project files for gtk-doc.
Does anyone know anything about this? Tim and I don't.
Do we need to keep it? If so, we can revamp these pages too.
Who maintains it? Viewsvn says stefkost last committed her
In gtk_image_expose() there is:
area = event->area;
/* ... */
if (!gdk_rectangle_intersect (&area, &widget->allocation, &area))
return FALSE;
Isn't this test unnecessary? It seems to me that event->area is always
enclosed in widget->allocation. Am I missing som
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008, Shawn Amundson wrote:
> Martyn Russell wrote:
>> no sysadmins seems to be stepping forward regarding this.
>>
>> As a result, this will have to wait.
>>
>
> I'm willing to do whatever it takes to help improve gtk.org. As
> such, I will provide my services as sysadmin.
thank
On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 15:46 +0100, Tim Janik wrote:
[snip]
> what is most unfortunate is that library.g.o only has glib development
> docs, but not gtk development docs.
That's probably because there are no tarball releases of GTK+ from svn
trunk at the moment. library.gnome.org can only use tarba
On Mon, 28 Jan 2008, Olav Vitters wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 02:30:14PM +, Martyn Russell wrote:
>>> http://imendio.com/~martyn/gtk/draft-final/download-linux.html
>>> * outdated versions
>>
>> You disagree? It might not make sense to list unsupported versions here
>> I agree, but we sh
Tim Janik wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Mar 2007, Owen Taylor wrote:
>
>
>> On Mon, 2007-03-05 at 12:21 -0500, Jake Goulding wrote:
>>
>
>
>>> goption.c(994) : warning C4267: 'function' : conversion from 'size_t' to
>>> 'gulong', possible loss of data
>>> change->allocated.array.data = g_renew (gch
On Mon, 5 Mar 2007, Owen Taylor wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-03-05 at 12:21 -0500, Jake Goulding wrote:
>> goption.c(994) : warning C4267: 'function' : conversion from 'size_t' to
>> 'gulong', possible loss of data
>> change->allocated.array.data = g_renew (gchar *,
>> change->allocated.array.data, chan
Johan Dahlin wrote:
> amol wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>> When we do gtk_buildable_set/get_name for any object created through
>> GtkBuilder, GtkBuildable does g_object_set/get_data to return the
>> corresponding name of object if its set/get_name are not overridden.
>> But GtkWidget overrides set/get_nam
amol wrote:
> Hi,
> When we do gtk_buildable_set/get_name for any object created through
> GtkBuilder, GtkBuildable does g_object_set/get_data to return the
> corresponding name of object if its set/get_name are not overridden.
> But GtkWidget overrides set/get_name of buildable interface and doe
Hi,
When we do gtk_buildable_set/get_name for any object created through
GtkBuilder, GtkBuildable does g_object_set/get_data to return the
corresponding name of object if its set/get_name are not overridden.
But GtkWidget overrides set/get_name of buildable interface and does
gtk_widget_set/get_nam
On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 01:03 +0100, Mikael Hermansson wrote:
> hmm...
>
> should this list be freed after use? also should I unref the GfileInfo
> objects inside?
Yes.
> Please add a hint about this in the docs... this is probadly true for
> other places in the GIO docs too :-)
I'll add it.
__
25 matches
Mail list logo
