Hi;
On Tue, 2006-08-29 at 10:24 +0300, Tor Lillqvist wrote:
>
> (It's for 256-colour mode that I don't seem to even have anything to
> test with. Not even in a virtual machine (running XP) does Display
> Settings offer a 256-colour mode. Is it really so that modern Windows
> graphics card drivers
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006, C.J. Adams-Collier wrote:
> Feel free to vote for or against deprecating gtk+ support for win95,
> win98 and winME here...
It's much too late to vote with regard to win95, IMO. Gtk has
been broken on that platform for ages, and I hardly think anyone
is going to invest time
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 11:45:11 +0300
Tor Lillqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > How about multithreading and memory management APIs?
> > Win2k-and-newer APIs are already introduced for such?
>
>No, those parts of GLib use functions that are present on all Windows
>platfor
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> How about multithreading and memory management APIs?
> Win2k-and-newer APIs are already introduced for such?
No, those parts of GLib use functions that are present on all Windows
platforms.
--tml
___
gtk-devel-list mailing
I'm sorry for keeping discussion without win9x volunteer.
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 11:23:35 +0300
Tor Lillqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>If somebody eventually creeps out of the woodwork and volunteers to
>make it work on win9x, I would strongly suggest they used a MSLU-based
>approach instead of (r
C.J. Adams-Collier writes:
> Feel free to vote for or against deprecating gtk+ support for win95,
> win98 and winME here:
We are talking about HEAD, which is known not to work on win9x anyway,
so "deprecating support" is an exaggeration.
But what I propose is that the remains of win9x-specific
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 11:10:48 +0300
Tor Lillqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > Is it possible to configure the text layout engine for each
> > script, when Uniscribe is used by default?
>
>If there existed other layout engines for the win32 pango backend,
>yes. But there
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Is it possible to configure the text layout engine for each
> script, when Uniscribe is used by default?
If there existed other layout engines for the win32 pango backend,
yes. But there is only basic-win32, which uses Uniscribe.
(Note that this doesn't have anything
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 10:01:20 +0300
Tor Lillqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > Could we restrict pango to use Uniscribe as simple left-to-right
> > text rendering?
>
>Why would we want to do that, when Uniscribe handles all the issues of
>complex scripts, without Pango h
James Henstridge writes:
> Note that votes alone probably aren't enough to ensure continuing
> support.
Indeed. ("Continuing support" here means just that the win9x code
would be kept in the HEAD sources, not that it would actually be known
to work on win9x.)
> It will require developer time a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Could we restrict pango to use Uniscribe as simple left-to-right
> text rendering?
Why would we want to do that, when Uniscribe handles all the issues of
complex scripts, without Pango having to do anything special? (And
rendering Arabic script is not simple.)
> An
On 29/08/06, C.J. Adams-Collier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED],
>
> Good thoughts. As more folks make known their need for win95 or win98
> support, more care will likely be taken to make such win9x backports
> (and future backpor
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
Good thoughts. As more folks make known their need for win95 or win98
support, more care will likely be taken to make such win9x backports
(and future backports) easier.
Feel free to vote for or against deprecating gtk+ support fo
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 14:39:11 +0300
Tor Lillqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > Dropping Win9x code from HEAD means "GTK+ 2.12 won't support for
> > Win9x"?
>
>Yes. For GTK+ 2.10 the situation is the same as for 2.8, i.e. it would
>presumably work otherwise, if cairo woul
On Mon, 2006-08-28 at 04:33 -0400, Tor Lillqvist wrote:
> Er, Harfbuzz doesn't do the same thing Uniscribe, does it?
No. HarfBuzz is basically the equivalent of the OTLS library on Win32
systems:
http://www.microsoft.com/typography/developers/otls/default.htm
--
behdad
http://behdad.org/
"
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> I remember, a guy was trying to port cairo to Win9x, although
> yet I've not heard successful report, at present.
OK. Doesn't sound too promising, then.
> Dropping Win9x code from HEAD means "GTK+ 2.12 won't support for
> Win9x"?
Yes. For GTK+ 2.10 the situation i
Hi,
Before all, I have to apologize that I vote No in spite of
I'm not GTK+/Win95 developer.
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 11:33:21 +0300
Tor Lillqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > I vote No, but please let me ask a silly question:
> > if cairo works on Win9x, GTK+ HEAD will wo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> I vote No, but please let me ask a silly question:
> if cairo works on Win9x, GTK+ HEAD will work as
> newer Win32 platforms?
I have no idea. GTK+ 2.8 might. But is there somebody working on
making cairo run on Win9x? And if somebody did this, wouldn't it be
enough t
Hi,
On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 22:33:13 +0300
Tor Lillqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>- Can the support for Win9x be dropped from GLib and GTK+ HEAD? Note
>that cairo has never worked on Win9x, so GTK+ has de facto not worked
>on Win9x since 2.8 anyway.
>
>Dropping Win9x support would mean (slightly) c
19 matches
Mail list logo
