2010/8/3 Tomas Soltys tomas.sol...@range-software.com
All right, so at the end it was my bug :)
Thank you all for your explanations.
Note also that part of the magic of gdk_threads_enter/leave that you can use
on unix to use gtk functions in subthreads does not work on win32 (and also
on
Hi,
I am quite new for GTK+. What I try to do now is to plot all details in an XML
file into a tree-structured view. For a big tree, there may be a + button to
expand the tree. Is there any good example code for it?
Regards,
Monchai
Hi,
I'm not sure, if I'm doing this right (and I'm new to GTK+), but here is
what is giving me trouble.
I have a drawing area where I show images acquired with a USB-connected
camera. The camera driver provides a hookup for a callback function, that
gets called each time a new image is acquired
Hi.
Are you using threads in your application? Problems like this usually
arise when you don't initialize GLib/GDK thread subsystems.
Tadej
--
Tadej Borovšak
tadeboro.blogspot.com
tadeb...@gmail.com
tadej.borov...@gmail.com
___
gtk-app-devel-list
On 08/04/2010 07:11 PM, Monchai Lertsutthiwong wrote:
Hi,
I am quite new for GTK+. What I try to do now is to plot all details
in an XML file into a tree-structured view. For a big tree, there
may be a + button to expand the tree. Is there any good example
code for it?
not 100% relevant
On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 4:31 PM, Michael Goffioul
michael.goffi...@gmail.com wrote:
I think GtkGLExt allows placing gtk+ widgets on top of the GL drawing
surface; at least, I'm pretty sure I've seen that happen.
I'll give it another try. I'd just love to see a working example :-)
Just for the
On Tue, 2010-08-03 at 18:42 -0700, Ryan Lortie wrote:
hi Everyone,
After a bit of post-GUADEC delay I am happy to announce dconf 0.5. This
is the first release of dconf that doesn't completely suck (but it still
has a lot of suck).
There have really been a lot of changes this time
hi Kevin,
On Wed, 2010-08-04 at 08:39 -0700, Kevin Fox wrote:
On Tue, 2010-08-03 at 18:42 -0700, Ryan Lortie wrote:
I am experimenting with living a libtool-free
existence.
Out of curiosity, why?
Short version:
1) I don't believe that I need it.
2) It has many features that are
On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 19:29:23 0200, Ryan Lortie wrote:
hi Kevin,
On Wed, 2010-08-04 at 08:39 -0700, Kevin Fox wrote:
On Tue, 2010-08-03 at 18:42 -0700, Ryan Lortie wrote:
I am experimenting with living a libtool-free
existence.
Out of curiosity, why?
Short version:
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Daniel Macks dma...@netspace.org wrote:
Well, it's fine if you don't intend to test it on those systems, but others
certainly are. For example, I manage the gnome suite for Fink, where our
users can run a fullish gnome desktop environment (I think similar
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Daniel Macks dma...@netspace.org wrote:
Well, it's fine if you don't intend to test it on those systems, but others
certainly are. For example, I manage the gnome suite for Fink, where our
users can run a fullish gnome desktop environment (I think similar
On Wed, 2010-08-04 at 16:33 -0400, Havoc Pennington wrote:
Hi,
Given this I'm not sure why nobody has ever replaced libtool while
keeping automake. For me it's probably 1) automake is written in perl
which I just don't speak and 2) suspicion that automake upstream
wouldn't take the patch. I
On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 16:33:38 -0400, Havoc Pennington wrote:
Or if someone could fix libtool so it isn't slow, and doesn't create
annoying .la files on platforms that don't require them, that would be
great too.
(drifting slightly off topic into another pet peeve...) .la files are a
2010/8/4 Havoc Pennington h...@pobox.com:
automake is fine, but libtool is a real problem. It seriously
lengthens compile/install times in a way that's probably wasted tens
of thousands of developer hours over the years, *at least*. In all
honesty, most likely any of us who write a lot of C
On 08/04/10 16:33, Havoc Pennington wrote:
I have a personal project where I'm not using convenience libraries
for files that are part of a half-dozen executables because it's
faster to compile files 6 times than it is to use a libtool library.
Are you exaggerating for effect or is this really
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Behdad Esfahbod beh...@behdad.org wrote:
On 08/04/10 16:33, Havoc Pennington wrote:
I have a personal project where I'm not using convenience libraries
for files that are part of a half-dozen executables because it's
faster to compile files 6 times than it
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 4:46 PM, Sven Neumann s...@gimp.org wrote:
What about http://dolt.freedesktop.org/ ? The approach taken here sounds
quite reasonable and has the potential to cut down compile time
significantly while keeping the portability of libtool without having to
reimplement
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 4:48 PM, Daniel Macks dma...@netspace.org wrote:
(drifting slightly off topic into another pet peeve...) .la files are a
crutch that makes it easy for developers to avoid remembering to link
against libraries that they actually use.
alas, they are not even really that.
18 matches
Mail list logo
