2008/9/22 Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > The difference is that you are knowingly breaking hundreds of > applications. You are able to fix those distributed by GNOME in a snap > and that's all good, but you let downstream distributors with hundreds > of broken applications in their hands. The only solution we have is to > revert this change, because we simply can't afford it.
Not true, we can avoid all the breakage inside GtkSpinButton. > Even if we fix all our packages (and that would take a few weeks), the > problem of non-free applications remains. GTK+ is not just a random > library that you can afford to break a each and every release, it is one > of the more widely used toolkits. If the wording of the documentation > was not clear enough, that's bad, but it's too late, you can't break it > now. > > Now for more constructive discussion: > * would it work if GtkSpinButtons (and maybe GtkScale) forced > page_size to be 0 in the constructors and in ..._set_adjustment? That's what I proposed. If it's != 0, force it to 0 and issue a warning. Spin controls have no concept of data set so there is no such thing as a page and therefore there's no use for limiting the offset to a certain subrange of (min, max). It's a two-three line change for GTK and was already worked around in libglade (patch posted earlier in this thread). -- Patryk Zawadzki _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
