On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 3:10 PM, Tor Lillqvist wrote:
>> How are the binaries in http://www.gtk.org/download-windows.html built?
> As you also use an RPM-based distro, the concepts should be familiar
> to you. And actually, there is a similar, in fact older, Fedora-based
> effort to cross-compil
Hi list,
Working on patch to enable assistive technology users to access a gnome-panel
applets like nm-applet, notification-area with keyboard shortcut.
Right now only indicator-applet-session in ubuntu does this with super + s and
super + m .
Any pointers would be great appreciated.
Cheers
Hi list,
Working on patch to enable assistive technology users to access a gnome-panel
applets like nm-applet, notification-area with keyboard shortcut.
Right now only indicator-applet-session in ubuntu does this with super + s and
super + m .
Any pointers would be great appreciated.
Cheers
Hello,
I would like to know if it is wise to introduce two
category|kind|type|sort of widgets:
- core widgets,
- compound widgets made with latter ones .
A definition of a compound widget could be:
"A compound widget is a widget that can me made only with other widgets
without the need of
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 13:35, Matthias Clasen
wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 6:10 AM, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Yeah, I get it, but here's the point: it isn't nice when a maintainer
>> says "unlikely" without giving even one reason, leaving the rest of us
>> to guess (EG, "that's m
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 6:10 AM, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe
wrote:
>
> Yeah, I get it, but here's the point: it isn't nice when a maintainer
> says "unlikely" without giving even one reason, leaving the rest of us
> to guess (EG, "that's most likely the reason").
These things have been discussed befor
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 12:10:58PM +0200, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
> Yeah, I get it, but here's the point: it isn't nice when a maintainer
> says "unlikely" without giving even one reason, leaving the rest of us
> to guess (EG, "that's most likely the reason").
Can we stop this discussion now o
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 11:59, Martyn Russell wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-06-15 at 09:54 +0200, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 01:16, Matthias Clasen
>> > That may be, but 'disable this random set of widgets I don't need'
>> > patches have very little chance of going upstream.
>>
On Tue, 2010-06-15 at 09:54 +0200, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 01:16, Matthias Clasen
> > That may be, but 'disable this random set of widgets I don't need'
> > patches have very little chance of going upstream.
>
> Why do they have little chance of going upstream?
The m
On 15/06/10 11:01, Tor Lillqvist wrote:
> Well, not only GTK+, but presumably then also everything else under it
> in the stack, otherwise it would be a rather pointless exercise,
> wouldn't it? I am fairly sure it doesn't work out-of-the-box. I have
> never tried.
We build GTK+, GLib, Pango and C
> You can already build GTK+ statically, can't you? Or doesn't it work on
> Windows?
Well, not only GTK+, but presumably then also everything else under it
in the stack, otherwise it would be a rather pointless exercise,
wouldn't it? I am fairly sure it doesn't work out-of-the-box. I have
never t
Le 14/06/10 10:27, Christian Dywan a écrit :
Am Sat, 12 Jun 2010 19:30:52 +0200
schrieb Xavier Claessens:
Hello,
I've been working on the HildonLiveSearch widget you can see on N900.
This is the entry you see when typing on the keyboard to filter your
contact list for example.
Felix Kaser and
On 15/06/10 09:26, Tor Lillqvist wrote:
> Not out-of-the-box currently, but working on that would be a better
> idea, and enabling statically building the GTK+ stack would have a
> better chance of getting upstream.
You can already build GTK+ statically, can't you? Or doesn't it work on Windows?
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 10:23, Tor Lillqvist wrote:
>> Is it good enough that the maintainer doesn't even give a reason?
>
> It is good enough for me. I admire a maintainer that doesn't let
> everything turn into bikeshedding.
A short explanation would be far better than just "we are unlikely to
> Is it good enough that the maintainer doesn't even give a reason?
It is good enough for me. I admire a maintainer that doesn't let
everything turn into bikeshedding.
> Did I miss something?
The possibility to maintain patches for the features you are missing
in your own distro or whatever?
-
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 10:05, Tor Lillqvist wrote:
>> Why do they have little chance of going upstream?
>
> Because the maintainer says so?
Is it good enough that the maintainer doesn't even give a reason? Did
I miss something?
--
blog: http://tshepang.tumblr.com
_
> Why do they have little chance of going upstream?
Because the maintainer says so?
--tml
___
gtk-devel-list mailing list
gtk-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 01:16, Matthias Clasen
wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 7:02 PM, Alberto Ruiz wrote:
>> 2010/6/14 Sam Thursfield :
>>> A more socially-minded approach would be to work on the problem of
>>> sharing a GTK+ runtime between all apps on a system. It's perhaps not
>>> an easy p
> Wouldn't it be possible to link gtk+ statically and rely on the linker to
> drop all the unused symbols?
Not out-of-the-box currently, but working on that would be a better
idea, and enabling statically building the GTK+ stack would have a
better chance of getting upstream.
--tml
__
On 06/15/2010 01:02 AM, Alberto Ruiz wrote:
2010/6/14 Sam Thursfield:
A more socially-minded approach would be to work on the problem of
sharing a GTK+ runtime between all apps on a system. It's perhaps not
an easy problem, due different requirements in versions and specific
libraries, but it's
20 matches
Mail list logo
