I don't mean to be a pest, but when might glib 2.20.1 and gtk
2.16.1 become available at
http://www.gtk.org/download-windows.html ?
The reason I ask is that it looks as if GTK 2.16.1 in particular
contains lots of useful fixes.
--
Allin Cottrell
Department of Economics
Wake Forest University
I don't mean to be a pest, but when might glib 2.20.1 and gtk
2.16.1 become available at
http://www.gtk.org/download-windows.html ?
Soon... Been a bit busy with other hackinh.
--tml
___
gtk-app-devel-list mailing list
gtk-app-devel-list@gnome.org
On Thu, 2009-04-02 at 20:34 -0400, Havoc Pennington wrote:
- What of the license issues?
GLib is LGPL. libdbus-1 is not. (...)
Just for the record, my comment on this has always been that the
license issues were not earth-shattering to begin with, and the
relicensing was just throwing
Hi,
On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 9:54 AM, Tim-Philipp Müller t@zen.co.uk wrote:
You tell people not to worry. But many people clearly do seem to worry.
Well, why don't these many people post a rational response to my
points? I have not seen a rebuttal to
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009, Havoc Pennington wrote:
On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 9:54 AM, Tim-Philipp Müller t@zen.co.uk wrote:
You tell people not to worry. But many people clearly do seem to worry.
Well, why don't these many people post a rational response to my
points? I have not seen a rebuttal
Hi,
On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 8:05 PM, Allin Cottrell cottr...@wfu.edu wrote:
Havoc may well be right with regard to libdbus, but IMO the burden
of proof rests the other way; that is, if code that is not under
*GPL is to be made part of glib, the onus is on those who would
make the addition to
On Sun, 2009-04-19 at 20:05 -0400, Allin Cottrell wrote:
On Sun, 19 Apr 2009, Havoc Pennington wrote:
On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 9:54 AM, Tim-Philipp Müller t@zen.co.uk wrote:
You tell people not to worry. But many people clearly do seem to worry.
Well, why don't these many people
