Hi everyone,
one quick question: does you GIO support netlink sockets? Or more
precisely, does GIO support listening to netlink sockets in a way that
allows a signal to be emitted or a callback to be called whenever there
is incoming data on a netlink socket?
I achieved this with Qt by creating
Hi,
We have been using GTK+ 2.20.1. We designed a window application with a
toolbar. It was found that if the application was invoked, some the
following error
was given (images were missing in proper path) -
mirus3g:16233): GLib-GIO-CRITICAL **: g_loadable_icon_load: assertion
Hello,
I've written out so many gobject property handlers in the last few
years, and they are always looking similar, so the desire to prune some
boilerplate code has been growing. The idea behind GProperty (actually
GFooProperty) is to subclass a GParamSpecFoo and add data and code
so the
This started out as a little TODO list while I was looking into
deprecating GdkColor for GdkRGBA in Lisbon's airport (it's much nicer
than Madrid) and ended as a pretty large list of comments. The
contents are unfiltered, so don't take anything personal. It wasn't
originally meant to be public. I
On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 12:52 +0100, Benjamin Otte wrote:
- If all style properties are rgba, everything that uses GdkColor is
fail. Widgets using GtkStyle will suddenly look wrong when we use
translucency for background colors. Can we just remove GtkStyle,
please? And deal with the fallout?
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 6:52 AM, Benjamin Otte o...@gnome.org wrote:
Can we just remove GtkStyle, please? And deal with the fallout?
No, we can't 'just' do that. It is deprecated now. Once all of gnome
is building against it with -DGTK_DISABLE_DEPRECATED, we can talk
about removing it, not
Alexander Larsson alexl at redhat.com writes:
Support specifying multiple targets in --with-gdktarget, then build a
single libgtk-3.0.so supporting all of these, switching at runtime. At
one time i was thinking we could load the backends dynamically to avoid
linking to all the dependencies of
Also, do you target this for 3.0? Because I don't think it's doable in an
API-stable way during 3.x?
Too late for 3.0. Remember, there will be a 4.0 at some point.
___
gtk-devel-list mailing list
gtk-devel-list@gnome.org
Hi,
I'm looking at GSettings+DConf as a simpler alternative to GConf for an
embedded project, but there are a couple of things that are not clear to me.
1. where does DConf keep it's database files? looking through the code,
it looks like it might be in the /etc/dconf/db/profile-name.d,
On 12/06/10 13:12, Kevin Fox wrote:
On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 09:53 -0800, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
On 12/05/10 17:14, Alexander Larsson wrote:
Then we add a GdkBackend type that each backend implements. This is a
singleton created at init to hang global stuff off. Its also useful for
backend
On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 10:19 -0800, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
On 12/06/10 13:12, Kevin Fox wrote:
On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 09:53 -0800, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
On 12/05/10 17:14, Alexander Larsson wrote:
Then we add a GdkBackend type that each backend implements. This is a
singleton created at
Some users of my software raised this issue in the last 24hrs:
-
I still call `!' `pling'...
I'm still missing the extremely handy RiscOS feature that right-click
on a menu allowed to make a selection without
On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 16:17 +, Benjamin Otte wrote:
Alexander Larsson alexl at redhat.com writes:
Support specifying multiple targets in --with-gdktarget, then build a
single libgtk-3.0.so supporting all of these, switching at runtime. At
one time i was thinking we could load the
On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 13:34 -0500, Paul Davis wrote:
Some users of my software raised this issue in the last 24hrs:
-
I still call `!' `pling'...
I'm still missing the extremely handy RiscOS feature that
On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 11:33 -0500, Matthias Clasen wrote:
Also, do you target this for 3.0? Because I don't think it's doable in an
API-stable way during 3.x?
Too late for 3.0. Remember, there will be a 4.0 at some point.
Are you sure it will not be possible to get this into 3.0? Its
On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 12:53 -0500, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
On 12/05/10 17:14, Alexander Larsson wrote:
Then we add a GdkBackend type that each backend implements. This is a
singleton created at init to hang global stuff off. Its also useful for
backend specific code.
Would it be possible
On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 10:31 -0800, Kevin Fox wrote:
On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 10:19 -0800, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
On 12/06/10 13:12, Kevin Fox wrote:
On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 09:53 -0800, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
On 12/05/10 17:14, Alexander Larsson wrote:
Then we add a GdkBackend type that
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 1:45 PM, Alexander Larsson al...@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 11:33 -0500, Matthias Clasen wrote:
Also, do you target this for 3.0? Because I don't think it's doable in an
API-stable way during 3.x?
Too late for 3.0. Remember, there will be a 4.0 at
On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 13:52 -0500, Matthias Clasen wrote:
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 1:45 PM, Alexander Larsson al...@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 11:33 -0500, Matthias Clasen wrote:
Also, do you target this for 3.0? Because I don't think it's doable in an
API-stable way during
On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 13:52 -0500, Matthias Clasen wrote:
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 1:45 PM, Alexander Larsson al...@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 11:33 -0500, Matthias Clasen wrote:
Also, do you target this for 3.0? Because I don't think it's doable in an
API-stable way during
On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 09:53 -0800, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
On 12/05/10 17:14, Alexander Larsson wrote:
Then we add a GdkBackend type that each backend implements. This is a
singleton created at init to hang global stuff off. Its also useful for
backend specific code.
Would it be possible
On Mon, 6 Dec 2010 13:34:36 -0500, Paul Davis wrote:
I'm wishing for that as well all the time. I wonder who came up with the
idea that there's only ever one thing you want to do in a menu. Didn't
know anyone was clever enough to implement something as complex as
don't close menu if
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 2:05 PM, Alexander Larsson al...@redhat.com wrote:
I have to admit that I haven't looked closely at the actual api/abi impact.
If it is just code motion and cleanup, then we can try to shoehorn it in.
But even so, we are a little less than a month away from 3.0
Well,
On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 14:27 -0500, Matthias Clasen wrote:
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 2:05 PM, Alexander Larsson al...@redhat.com wrote:
I have to admit that I haven't looked closely at the actual api/abi impact.
If it is just code motion and cleanup, then we can try to shoehorn it in.
But
2010/12/6 Jernej Simončič jernej|s-gm...@eternallybored.org:
On Mon, 6 Dec 2010 13:34:36 -0500, Paul Davis wrote:
I'm wishing for that as well all the time. I wonder who came up with the
idea that there's only ever one thing you want to do in a menu. Didn't
know anyone was clever enough to
On Mon, 6 Dec 2010 14:33:21 -0500, Paul Davis wrote:
well, i think it implies being able to use a menu like a dialog
window.
Exactly. If you need the menu to behave like a dialog box, use a dialog
box.
i'm not convinced that this is obviously a good thing, but its
not obviously bad either.
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 7:43 PM, Alexander Larsson al...@redhat.com wrote:
You can of course check on the type of anything, like the display or a
window. However, sometimes there might be no display availible, like if
its not been opened yet.
I think the question is if we want to support
On 12/06/2010 08:39 PM, Benjamin Otte wrote:
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 7:43 PM, Alexander Larssonal...@redhat.com wrote:
You can of course check on the type of anything, like the display or a
window. However, sometimes there might be no display availible, like if
its not been opened yet.
I
On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 20:39 +0100, Benjamin Otte wrote:
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 7:43 PM, Alexander Larsson al...@redhat.com wrote:
You can of course check on the type of anything, like the display or a
window. However, sometimes there might be no display availible, like if
its not been
On 12/06/10 13:46, Alexander Larsson wrote:
On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 12:53 -0500, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
On 12/05/10 17:14, Alexander Larsson wrote:
Then we add a GdkBackend type that each backend implements. This is a
singleton created at init to hang global stuff off. Its also useful for
On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 15:16 -0500, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
On 12/06/10 13:46, Alexander Larsson wrote:
On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 12:53 -0500, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
On 12/05/10 17:14, Alexander Larsson wrote:
Then we add a GdkBackend type that each backend implements. This is a
singleton
On 12/06/2010 08:03 PM, Jernej Simončič wrote:
On Mon, 6 Dec 2010 13:34:36 -0500, Paul Davis wrote:
I'm wishing for that as well all the time. I wonder who came up with the
idea that there's only ever one thing you want to do in a menu. Didn't
know anyone was clever enough to implement
On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 20:31 +0100, Alexander Larsson wrote:
On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 14:27 -0500, Matthias Clasen wrote:
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 2:05 PM, Alexander Larsson al...@redhat.com wrote:
I have to admit that I haven't looked closely at the actual api/abi
impact.
If it is
On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 08:38:34PM +0100, Jernej Simončič wrote:
On Mon, 6 Dec 2010 14:33:21 -0500, Paul Davis wrote:
well, i think it implies being able to use a menu like a dialog
window.
Exactly. If you need the menu to behave like a dialog box, use a dialog
box.
Hm, why are you so
On 12/06/2010 11:37 PM, Petr Tomasek wrote:
On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 08:38:34PM +0100, Jernej Simončič wrote:
On Mon, 6 Dec 2010 14:33:21 -0500, Paul Davis wrote:
well, i think it implies being able to use a menu like a dialog
window.
Exactly. If you need the menu to behave like a dialog
On Tue, 2010-12-07 at 08:44 +0100, Martin Nordholts wrote:
On 12/06/2010 11:37 PM, Petr Tomasek wrote:
On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 08:38:34PM +0100, Jernej Simončič wrote:
On Mon, 6 Dec 2010 14:33:21 -0500, Paul Davis wrote:
well, i think it implies being able to use a menu like a dialog
36 matches
Mail list logo
