On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 14:25 +0100, Emmanuele Bassi wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 13:47 +0100, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> > > I'd rather have libgdk-pixbuf be definitely split out from GTK+ (and
> > > fixed with the API breaking fury of an angry god of old while we're at
> > > it) instead - which woul
On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 13:47 +0100, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> > I'd rather have libgdk-pixbuf be definitely split out from GTK+ (and
> > fixed with the API breaking fury of an angry god of old while we're at
> > it) instead - which would collide with the whole idea of having fewer
> > libraries but at
On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 13:41 +0100, Emmanuele Bassi wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 12:28 +0100, Michael Meeks wrote:
>
> > Could we -statically- link libgthread + libgmodule into libglib and
> > libgdk + libgdk-pixbuf into libgtk libraries respectively[4]
>
> ugh. that would make Clutter depen
On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 12:28 +0100, Michael Meeks wrote:
> Could we -statically- link libgthread + libgmodule into libglib and
> libgdk + libgdk-pixbuf into libgtk libraries respectively[4]
ugh. that would make Clutter depend on libgtk.
bad, very bad.
I'd rather have libgdk-pixbuf be defin
Hi there,
On Thu, 2009-11-26 at 14:35 +0100, Alexander Larsson wrote:
> I think that we are now at a place where its used widely enough and
> is important enough that we need to be able to rely on the basic
> threading primitives in our libraries and plugins by default. It
> would be nice to be ab
