> Am Donnerstag, den 02.12.2021, 20:16 +0000 schrieb Jaft:> > > Am Donnerstag, > den 02.12.2021, 02:10 +0000 schrieb Jaft:> > > > I had noticed that the > core-updates-frozen branch had been merged> > > > so> > > > I upgraded but > found things pretty much the same as before.> > > Please come back, you're > within the wrong timeline.> > > > Oh, I don't mean that I used another > branch; I saw it got merged to> > master (I believe) so I just did a guix > pull and then guix upgrade.> > I'm still using stable. Sorry about the > confusion!> I am jokingly referring to the fact that core-updates-frozen is > not yet> merged to master. If you do live two years in the future, please > tell> me the lotto numbers. I need them before I die. Ohhh; haha. Now I get it. Welp; seems I must've misread something, somewhere.
> > > > I saw an old patch (> > > > > > > > http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix.git/commit/?id=e311ef4f87f7ad8db2114e5f89961eea0240893b> > > > > > > > ) and, while I'd checked rofi for gdk-pixbuf+svg – before –, –> > > > > > > > somehow – it made me think to check librsvg, this time, and > > > > found> > > > that it was using gdk-pixbuf, rather than gdk-pixbuf+svg. > > > > I then> > > > made a package inheriting librsvg but using > > > > gdk-pixbuf+svg,> > > > instead, and made a package which inherited rofi > > > > but used my> > > > librsvg package and, with that installed, rofi > > > > worked with .svgs,> > > > then.> > > > > > > > Am I right in assuming > > > > librsvg ought to be using the latter, as> > > > the library deals > > > > directly with handling SVGs? If so, I can put> > > > together a patch > > > > to submit.> > > Have you checked using gdk-pixbuf+svg as input to rofi > > > > directly? I> > > don't see why we would have to go in circles for > > > > librsvg, the> > > component you're trying to use is gdk-pixbuf.> > > > > > > > I just checked and it does; I was going off of the package formation> > > > > > in Guix but, checking the listed dependencies on the rofi GitHub page> > > > > > (> > > > > > https://github.com/davatorium/rofi/blob/next/INSTALL.md#external-libraries> > > > > > ), it does list gdk-pixbuf as one so, perhaps, it makes more sense > > > > to> > build with that instead of librsvg.> > > > I had assumed the > > > > package inputs for rofi were already accurate and,> > if gdk-pixbuf > > > > doesn't have SVG support while gdk-pixbuf+svg does, it> > seemed > > > > plausible that gdk-pixbuf+svg would be the preferred package> > for > > > > librsvg as librsvg is dealing with SVGs, perhaps part of the> > reason > > > > for SVG icons not getting rendered in applications like> > Thunar, > > > > XFCE, etc. (that being said, I'm unfamiliar with the librsvg> > code > > > > so, perhaps, this assumption of how the gdk-pixbuf dependency is> > > > > > being used is incorrect, on my part).> Writing a short letter takes > > > > time. So to summarize, librsvg is not> actually a dependency of rofi, > > > > gdk-pixbuf (with SVG support) is. > Anything missing? I believe that's accurate but I don't have much of any experience with work such as this so I was including my reasoning, in case I was off or misguided at all. That being said, I'd hazard that yours is an accurate summary, in totality. > > In any case, librsvg is not listed as a dependency for rofi while> > > > gdk-pixbuf is and swapping librsvg for gdk-pixbuf+svg in the rofi> > > > package still seemed to build it alright (and render SVGs) so, at> > least > > directly for rofi, directly using dgk-pixbuf+svg would still> > solve the > > SVG issue for it.> > Now that that's cleared up, you might want to synthesize a patch from> it. > Is there anything else that was swept under the rug and that we'd> need to > actually resolve before closing this bug after fixing rofi? Taking another look at some of the other programs I'd mentioned, I'd noticed that file-roller and viewnior are also using gdk-pixbuf; switching those inputs to gdk-pixbuf+svg made them render the icons from Papirus so was thinking to make patches for those, as well? Including gdk-pixbuf+svg as an input for thunar resulted in it being able to fully render icons appropriately, finally, but I couldn't figure out where gdk-pixbuf had been used (neither for thunar nor any dependencies), if at all. I'm assuming that simply adding it as an input, rather than trying to trace if gdk-pixbuf is used elsewhere in thunar's dependency graph, is considered bad practice, right?
