Re: [g-i] patch for the lines problem
Loïc Minier wrote: On Thu, Sep 21, 2006, Attilio Fiandrotti wrote: FYI, Mathias Classen said GTK+ 2.10.4 is going to be presumably released at the end of this week. I'm preparing 2.10.4, and it has some bug fixes, but it doesn't seem to change anything related to DFB. No, nothing the end user will notice, but Mike Emmel did some code cleanup recently to remove long time hacks and now we should have what is going to be the definitive sourcecode base for the DFB backend. Attilio -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [g-i] patch for the lines problem
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006, Attilio Fiandrotti wrote: > FYI, Mathias Classen said GTK+ 2.10.4 is going to be presumably released > at the end of this week. I'm preparing 2.10.4, and it has some bug fixes, but it doesn't seem to change anything related to DFB. -- Loïc Minier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [g-i] patch for the lines problem
Attilio Fiandrotti wrote: Loïc Minier wrote: On Wed, Sep 20, 2006, Attilio Fiandrotti wrote: Hmm, 2.10.3 did build, but I can't claim the directfb flavor isn't broken. That's correct: i was trying to say that the DFB backend found in GTK+ 2.10.3 is broken, while the X backend compiles correctly. Any idea about when 2.10.4 is going to be released? Ok, I don't know how to test the directfb backend myself, but it built fine, so I announced it's availability here. :) Concerning the release: Some threads in gtk-devel@ suggest it could have been released in the beginning of september, I don't know why it wasn't, so I expect it is imminent. Ok, i'll ask gtk-devel people, so that i can test the DFB backend in time and make sure it's not broken. FYI, Mathias Classen said GTK+ 2.10.4 is going to be presumably released at the end of this week. Attilio -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [g-i] patch for the lines problem
Loïc Minier wrote: On Wed, Sep 20, 2006, Attilio Fiandrotti wrote: Hmm, 2.10.3 did build, but I can't claim the directfb flavor isn't broken. That's correct: i was trying to say that the DFB backend found in GTK+ 2.10.3 is broken, while the X backend compiles correctly. Any idea about when 2.10.4 is going to be released? Ok, I don't know how to test the directfb backend myself, but it built fine, so I announced it's availability here. :) Concerning the release: Some threads in gtk-devel@ suggest it could have been released in the beginning of september, I don't know why it wasn't, so I expect it is imminent. Ok, i'll ask gtk-devel people, so that i can test the DFB backend in time and make sure it's not broken. cheers Attilio -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [g-i] patch for the lines problem
Loïc Minier wrote: On Mon, Sep 11, 2006, Attilio Fiandrotti wrote: 1. switch to 2.10.3 libraries please note that while GTK+ 2.10.2 should compile correctly, current GTK in cvs ( and 2.10.3 too, IIRC) won't because it needs something like the attached patch that mike should be applying in days. I think GTK+ 2.10.2 is a good choice (2.10.1 had some issues, while 2.10.3 may not compile without the patch) for g-i, i feel backporting patches to 2.0.9 or 2.8.x would be a real pain. Hmm, 2.10.3 did build, but I can't claim the directfb flavor isn't broken. That's correct: i was trying to say that the DFB backend found in GTK+ 2.10.3 is broken, while the X backend compiles correctly. Any idea about when 2.10.4 is going to be released? cheers Attilio -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [g-i] patch for the lines problem
On Wed, Sep 20, 2006, Attilio Fiandrotti wrote: > > Hmm, 2.10.3 did build, but I can't claim the directfb flavor isn't > > broken. > That's correct: i was trying to say that the DFB backend found in GTK+ > 2.10.3 is broken, while the X backend compiles correctly. > Any idea about when 2.10.4 is going to be released? Ok, I don't know how to test the directfb backend myself, but it built fine, so I announced it's availability here. :) Concerning the release: Some threads in gtk-devel@ suggest it could have been released in the beginning of september, I don't know why it wasn't, so I expect it is imminent. -- Loïc Minier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [g-i] patch for the lines problem
On Mon, Sep 11, 2006, Attilio Fiandrotti wrote: > >1. switch to 2.10.3 libraries > please note that while GTK+ 2.10.2 should compile correctly, current GTK > in cvs ( and 2.10.3 too, IIRC) won't because it needs something like the > attached patch that mike should be applying in days. > I think GTK+ 2.10.2 is a good choice (2.10.1 had some issues, while > 2.10.3 may not compile without the patch) for g-i, i feel backporting > patches to 2.0.9 or 2.8.x would be a real pain. Hmm, 2.10.3 did build, but I can't claim the directfb flavor isn't broken. -- Loïc Minier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [g-i] patch for the lines problem
On Sun, Sep 10, 2006 at 09:57:15PM +0200, Loïc Minier wrote: > tag 386860 + pending confirmed upstream > stop > > On Sun, Sep 10, 2006, Davide Viti wrote: > > the decision has to be made by the gnome team, responsable also of the > > udebs used with g-i. Don't know if it's going to happen before Etch is > > released > > We would really love to; I think it's going to be a tight race, so we > need to consider both options. > > > 2. revert the patch needed to fix [1] > > this would involve a new upload of gtk+2.0, which should include a patch > > to fix the problem with horizontal/vertical lines. > > I tested and prepared a patch which fixes the problem (see [3]) > > Thanks, I've added the patch to our SVN for the unstable branch > and it will be part of next upload. (Since gtk is a big package and > it's the only change right now, I'm waiting to gather more fixes.) > finger crossed; thanx for the update. regards, Davide signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [g-i] patch for the lines problem
Davide Viti wrote:
A bit of history:
a problem [1] with Italic letters near the borders which was fixed
upstream; the fix caused some problems which can be seen in [2] and
was noticed when g-i switched to the 2.8.x set of libraries.
Upstream version of gtk+ is currently 2.10.3, and according to Mike
Emmel, upstream author of the gtk-directfb backend, it'd be
non-trivial to backport the fixes to 2.18.x libraries.
There are two options:
1. switch to 2.10.3 libraries
please note that while GTK+ 2.10.2 should compile correctly, current GTK
in cvs ( and 2.10.3 too, IIRC) won't because it needs something like the
attached patch that mike should be applying in days.
I think GTK+ 2.10.2 is a good choice (2.10.1 had some issues, while
2.10.3 may not compile without the patch) for g-i, i feel backporting
patches to 2.0.9 or 2.8.x would be a real pain.
friendly
Attilio
Index: gdkwindow-directfb.c
===
RCS file: /cvs/gnome/gtk+/gdk/directfb/gdkwindow-directfb.c,v
retrieving revision 1.10
diff -r1.10 gdkwindow-directfb.c
2996c2996
< gdk_display_beep (GDK_WINDOW_DISPLAY (window));
---
> g_warning ("gdk_window_beep() not implemented.\n");
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [g-i] patch for the lines problem
tag 386860 + pending confirmed upstream stop On Sun, Sep 10, 2006, Davide Viti wrote: > the decision has to be made by the gnome team, responsable also of the > udebs used with g-i. Don't know if it's going to happen before Etch is > released We would really love to; I think it's going to be a tight race, so we need to consider both options. > 2. revert the patch needed to fix [1] > this would involve a new upload of gtk+2.0, which should include a patch > to fix the problem with horizontal/vertical lines. > I tested and prepared a patch which fixes the problem (see [3]) Thanks, I've added the patch to our SVN for the unstable branch and it will be part of next upload. (Since gtk is a big package and it's the only change right now, I'm waiting to gather more fixes.) -- Loïc Minier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [g-i] patch for the lines problem
On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 19:00:08 +0200, Davide Viti wrote: > 2. revert the patch needed to fix [1] > this would involve a new upload of gtk+2.0, which should include a patch > to fix the problem with horizontal/vertical lines. > I tested and prepared a patch which fixes the problem (see [3]) > Of course this would mean that [1] is going to appear again but it'd be > not as bad as the lines problem, which affects all languages. > > > If this problem is going to be an RC bug, at least we have a fix for it. I've just filed #386860 regards, Davide -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[g-i] patch for the lines problem
A bit of history: a problem [1] with Italic letters near the borders which was fixed upstream; the fix caused some problems which can be seen in [2] and was noticed when g-i switched to the 2.8.x set of libraries. Upstream version of gtk+ is currently 2.10.3, and according to Mike Emmel, upstream author of the gtk-directfb backend, it'd be non-trivial to backport the fixes to 2.18.x libraries. There are two options: 1. switch to 2.10.3 libraries the decision has to be made by the gnome team, responsable also of the udebs used with g-i. Don't know if it's going to happen before Etch is released 2. revert the patch needed to fix [1] this would involve a new upload of gtk+2.0, which should include a patch to fix the problem with horizontal/vertical lines. I tested and prepared a patch which fixes the problem (see [3]) Of course this would mean that [1] is going to appear again but it'd be not as bad as the lines problem, which affects all languages. If this problem is going to be an RC bug, at least we have a fix for it. regards, Davide [1] http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=330824 [2] http://people.debian.org/~fjp/d-i/g-i_2.8.18_display-weirdness.png [3] http://www.webalice.it/zinosat/g-i/009_revert_gdkdrawable-directfb.patch signature.asc Description: Digital signature
