Addind 2 Widget in 1 Container....

2009-12-15 Thread Thibault Duponchelle
Hi ! Firstly thank you for your help. I 'm actually trying to add a GtkDrawingArea in a window that already contains a GtkImage. There's probably an easy solution for this but I didn't know it... :( So I show my code and I wait for suggestions... :D GtkWidget* draw_screen(GLOBAL_SKIN_INFOS

Re: Addind 2 Widget in 1 Container....

2009-12-15 Thread David Nečas
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 01:50:56PM +0100, Thibault Duponchelle wrote: I 'm actually trying to add a GtkDrawingArea in a window that already contains a GtkImage. There's probably an easy solution for this but I didn't know it... :( So I show my code and I wait for suggestions... :D GtkWindow

Re: Addind 2 Widget in 1 Container....

2009-12-15 Thread Lars Wirzenius
On Tue, 2009-12-15 at 13:50 +0100, Thibault Duponchelle wrote: So I simply search for a solution to contain a pixmap AND a drawarea . Use GtkBox is impossible because the pixmap must be in background and the drawarea center ON it. Could you use only a GtkDrawingArea widget in the container

Re: Addind 2 Widget in 1 Container....

2009-12-15 Thread Thibault Duponchelle
Hi ! GtkWindow is a container that can contain exactly one other widget. Other containers, e.g. Gtk[HV]Box, GtkTable, GtkLayout, ..., can contain more widgets organized in different ways. So put on of them to the window and pack the widgets to it. [...] Yeti Thank you Yeti and Lars

RE: 'Suspect' libglib-2.0 when launching Ardour2.8.4

2009-12-15 Thread G. GuitarLord
Ok, i re-installed glib2-2.14.6-2.fc8. Restarted X, then did ' nm -D --radix=dec --defined-only -S /usr/lib/libglib-2.0.so | grep -w g_atomic_int_add' Result: 00072976 0014 T g_atomic_int_add ? From: muadiba...@hotmail.com To: sc...@asofyet.org CC: p...@linuxaudiosystems.com;

Re: 'Suspect' libglib-2.0 when launching Ardour2.8.4

2009-12-15 Thread Paul Davis
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 6:56 AM, G. GuitarLord muadiba...@hotmail.com wrote: Ok, i re-installed glib2-2.14.6-2.fc8. Restarted X, then did ' nm -D --radix=dec --defined-only -S /usr/lib/libglib-2.0.so | grep -w g_atomic_int_add' Result:  00072976 0014 T g_atomic_int_add ? the actual

RE: 'Suspect' libglib-2.0 when launching Ardour2.8.4

2009-12-15 Thread G. GuitarLord
So, for my system this command is: GLIB=$(ldd /usr/lib/ardour2/ardour-2.8.4 2 /dev/null | grep glib-2.0 | sed 's/.*= \([^ ]*\) .*/\1/') right? Unfortunately, this returns nothing on the console...Unless I didnt understood how to use it... Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 08:24:04 -0500 Subject: Re:

Re: Native/Extended layout

2009-12-15 Thread Javier Jardón
2009/12/14 Johannes Schmid j...@jsschmid.de: Hi everybody! You potentially know that GTK+ has some issues when it comes to correctly assign space to widgets if the widgets don't have a fixed size. In 2007, Mathias Hasselmann worked on this issues in a summer of code project (see the

Re: Native/Extended layout

2009-12-15 Thread Johannes Schmid
Hi Javier! thank you for your work on this. I've also update the roadmap with all the new info [1]. Feel free to improve it if you want ;) Thanks. I think this is better placed in the 3.0 section as I feel it is a bit risky to add this in the short 2.20 cycle. This really needs careful

Re: 'Suspect' libglib-2.0 when launching Ardour2.8.4

2009-12-15 Thread John Ralls
On Dec 15, 2009, at 11:47 AM, G. GuitarLord wrote: So, for my system this command is: GLIB=$(ldd /usr/lib/ardour2/ardour-2.8.4 2 /dev/null | grep glib-2.0 | sed 's/.*= \([^ ]*\) .*/\1/') right? Unfortunately, this returns nothing on the console...Unless I didnt understood how to use

Re: 'Suspect' libglib-2.0 when launching Ardour2.8.4

2009-12-15 Thread Paul Davis
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 8:43 PM, John Ralls jra...@ceridwen.us wrote: In fact, do just ldd /usr/lib/ardour2/ardour-2.8.4 2 /dev/null | grep glib-2.0 to see where ardour is looking for glib. as a followup, in case the OP doesn't do it ... the problem was that he was using Fedora 8, which was

Re: 'Suspect' libglib-2.0 when launching Ardour2.8.4

2009-12-15 Thread John Ralls
On Dec 15, 2009, at 5:59 PM, Paul Davis wrote: it was still a remarkable screw up on their part - compiling glib for x86 as if it was a platform with no atomic operations, and thus forcing all atomic ops to actually use mutexes, thus totally changing their semantics. i question whether