On 6/8/05, Derrick J Houy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I run on Fedrora Core 3 which has GTK+ 2.4.13 installed. I want to
continue to build my apps against the standard packages included in FC3,
but also need to fix some bugs which allow the apps to work with GTK+ 2.6.7.
Can anyone help me with
Dnia 09-06-2005, czw o godzinie 16:03 +0100, y g napisa:
I am trying to convert an application code which was produced with
glade's code autogenerator to using libglade. But I firslty need one
thing. Is there a replacement function for the lookup_widget?
glade_xml_get_widget seemed to be the
I beleive you can just use gtk_window_set_position () on your main window.
Chris Anderson
On 6/9/05, Mohit Gogia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
is there any way that i can position gtk window at a particular
location on the screen..like at the bottom right corner?
--
Frederic Crozat wrote:
Hi all,
I only discovered this morning by looking at James commit for jhbuild
that GNOME 2.11/2.12 is supposed to ship with GTK+ 2.8 (and therefore
Cairo) which might not have been obvious for anybody reading
http://live.gnome.org/RoadMap (since there is only a reference
On Wed, 2005-06-08 at 11:30 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
If you look at www.gtk.org/plan/2.8, you'll see that our schedule calls
for a 2.7.0 release with all major 2.8 features in by June 1, so we are
a bit behind the schedule already. Looking at the features listed on
that page
- Cairo
On Thu, June 9, 2005 9:55, Mark McLoughlin said:
On Wed, 2005-06-08 at 11:30 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
My feeling is that we should probably drop gobject introspection, gail
and libglade integration from the 2.8 feature list at this point, and
aim for a feature-complete 2.7.0 release
On Thu, 2005-06-09 at 12:10 +0100, Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro wrote:
It has not been tested it was too soon to test. Why are people so
afraid of gtk+ 2.7 without even trying it? It really is quite stable
now.
I think it's because in these enlightened times, people use the GNOME
stack that
Hi,
On Wed, 2005-06-08 at 12:28 +0100, David A Knight wrote:
On Wed, 2005-06-08 at 10:34 +0200, Emmanuele Bassi wrote:
The recently used manager is checked by GtkFileChooser: developers need
not to meddle with a RecentManager object directely. Once a document is
opened or saved using
No-one was implying that Cairo was a Bad Idea (tm), only whether we
could be 99% sure of it being as stable as and as fast as the current
stable GTK+ in a relatively short timescale.
Since Cairo is a pipelined graphics library and most of the original
graphics calls are not routed through
On Thu, 2005-06-09 at 12:29 +0100, Andrew Sobala wrote:
Hey hey hey, let's stay calm here. GNOME necessarily works on a
short-term-benefit model; the question we need to ask is Is going to
GTK+ 2.8 in less than 6 months *definitely* not going to have any
negative implications on that version
On Thu, 2005-06-09 at 14:39 +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
Matthias's mail basically says that that isn't going to be an issue
this time and details what the GTK+ guys are doing to make sure of that.
So, lets not get things mixed up here. Performance worries are very
different
On Thu, 2005-06-09 at 14:39 +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
If we're talking about performance/stability in the context of whether
GNOME 2.12 should use GTK+ 2.8, we're effectively saying I think the
GTK+ team might ship a unstable or unacceptably slow 2.8.0 release;
GNOME shouldn't commit
On 6/9/05, Luis Villa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6/9/05, Jon K Hellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2005-06-09 at 14:39 +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
If we're talking about performance/stability in the context of
whether
GNOME 2.12 should use GTK+ 2.8, we're effectively
quote who=Mark McLoughlin
I think these kind of questions are only relevant in the context of
deciding on the *gtk* schedule. I don't think they're very relevant in the
context of deciding whether GNOME 2.12 should use GTK+ 2.8. If we're all
confident the schedules line up, then I don't think
On Thu, 2005-06-09 at 14:39 +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
On Thu, 2005-06-09 at 12:29 +0100, Andrew Sobala wrote:
Hey hey hey, let's stay calm here. GNOME necessarily works on a
short-term-benefit model; the question we need to ask is Is going to
GTK+ 2.8 in less than 6 months
On Thu, 2005-06-09 at 17:02 +0200, Rodrigo Moya wrote:
Hi
Just tried compiling via jhbuild, and while GTK+ compiled fine, other
modules didn't because of cairo.h not being found and referenced from
some gdk header files.
So, the attached patch fixed it for me, can I commit?
Looks right
On Mon, 2005-06-06 at 22:22 -0700, Gowri Kandasamy wrote:
I built GTK2.4 its dependencies. I get the following error message
when I run gtk-demo
A) Wrong list, this list is about developing GTK+
B) This list is also only about currently maintained versions of GTK+,
which GTK+-2.4 is not.
On 6/9/05, Jon K Hellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2005-06-09 at 10:49 -0400, Luis Villa wrote:
first 'column' of times is gtk 2.6, second is gtk/cairo HEAD of
yesterday, both with the Mist theme:
GtkEntry - time: 0.43 0.76
GtkComboBox - time: 12.61 15.30
GtkComboBoxEntry -
First I want to say I hope I'm helping. I think by recording my
observations they can be helpful. I know I've learned more about GTK
in Owens response then in a months of reading the mailing list and web
site.
On 6/9/05, Owen Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2005-06-09 at 19:10 -0400,
Since I have used gtk+2.7.0 cvs for some time, in the test,
I only reinstalled gtk+2.6.7, glib(2.7.0),atk(1.10.1) and pango(1.9.0)
remained to be from cvs. My results are quite
different from others:
model name : Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 2.20GHz
1 G RAM
N= 100
20 matches
Mail list logo
