2010/9/3 Christophe Fergeau <cferg...@gmail.com>: > Hi, > > On Thu, Sep 02, 2010 at 07:57:44PM -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote: >> One downside that you've mentioned earlier is that with this approach, >> gdk-pixbuf grows a cairo (and thus libX11) dependency. >> That might inconvenience a few gdk-pixbuf users. But the one I know >> offhand, librsvg, already has a cairo dependency (via pango) anyway. >> So, probably not a big problem. > > For what it's worth, libgpod has a gdk-pixbuf dependency and no cairo dep, > and people complain from time to time about that dependency (though that's > mainly on distros where gdk-pixbuf is in the same package as gtk+, which > will no longer be the case with gtk3). So I don't know how they will react > to an additional cairo dep ;)
Well, since currently gdk-pixbuf comes inside Gtk+, and Gtk+ depends on cairo. In effect, you already depend on cairo. So in effect, you will have one dependency less, Gtk+. This should make your dependency-phobic users happy. > On the other hand, a GdkPixbuf handling more formats than the current one > would be really useful since for now it's not possible to easily transfer > pixel data from a GdkPixbuf to a QImage (conversion is needed). Hopefully > with the additional pixel formats that are suggested here, this will become > easier. > > Christophe > > _______________________________________________ > gtk-devel-list mailing list > gtk-devel-list@gnome.org > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list > > -- Un saludo, Alberto Ruiz _______________________________________________ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
