On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 12:41 PM, Patryk Zawadzki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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). >
That seems like a reasonable proposal, assuming that most of the breakage is in spin buttons. _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
