John Ralls wrote:
Not moduleset, modulesets. Three sets of 9 modulesets. Also 36
patches, some of which are obsolete and could be deleted (and a
bunch more that could become obsolete if they were approved for
committing to Gtk), a customized jhbuildrc and several examples for
further
Hi,
Mike Massonnet wrote:
This wiki page[1] has a note on how to prepend a commit message with a
tag. This form of a tag is actually buggy with git am, git am will
eat any text at the beginning of a subject line that is embraced by
brackets. Instead, it should be updated to use this form:
Matthias Clasen wrote:
Yes, the api breakage was discovered soon after the merge and is
fixed in 2.17.4
Perfect; I didn't notice I was still tracking the csw branch; sorry
for the noise.
Frederic
___
gtk-devel-list mailing list
Alexander Larsson wrote:
The client-side-windows branch has now been merged into master.
The http://git.gnome.org/cgit/gtk+/commit/?id=0b586a5a change to
gdkdrawable.h:
@@ -100,6 +100,7 @@ struct _GdkDrawableClass
void (*draw_drawable) (GdkDrawable *drawable,
Stefan Kost wrote:
subtasks that I could need help with:
1) start a basic cgi for library.gnome.org (if I do it its gonna be
perl, but I don't care so much)
* have a hasmap there docmodule-sourcedir
* implements a fast way to get from symbol to docblob
* when calling
Matthias Clasen wrote:
On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 7:25 AM, Jaap A. Haitsma j...@haitsma.org wrote:
Great. Shouldn't update jhbuild to build from trunk? That way 2.15
get's more testing
Sounds like a good idea
Done.
@gnome-i18n: 2.26 will use GTK+ 2.16, you may have something to
update in
Mike Massonnet wrote:
Just to let you know that the page about GtkStatusIcon[0] links against
GIcon which ends to return 404[1].
Please file a bug in bugzilla.gnome.org, website product,
library.gnome.org component.
Thanks,
Frederic
___
Owen Taylor wrote:
I'm using the subversion trunk for jhbuild which I didn't assume was
stable. I get the output below when I try jhbuild bootstrap
In general, I'd strongly recommend against jhbuild bootstrap. It:
It is already written down in the manual; but it is obvisouly not
enough
Patrick Hallinan wrote:
I ignored that and tried jhbuild gtk+' but the first package
(fontconfig-2.6.0) failed to build. I think that this is the first
error:
In file included from ../fontconfig/fcfreetype.h:27,
from fcftint.h:26,
from
Olav Vitters wrote:
Library uses tarballs. When you do a install-module, library.gnome.org
updates after a while (5 min cron delay). Might not always take the
latest version though (uses the r-t modulesets IIRC, something like
micro being ok, but won't take newer major.. ask frepd if you want
Stefan Kost wrote:
the gtk website has no bugzilla entry. Could someone have a look at this bug
(files for www.gnome.org right now),
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=531754
While you're at it, http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=514882
would also have benefited from a
Matthias Clasen wrote:
GTK+ 2.13.0 is now available for download at:
And its documentation is now available at
http://library.gnome.org/devel/gtk/unstable/
Frederic
___
gtk-devel-list mailing list
gtk-devel-list@gnome.org
Murray Cumming wrote:
what is most unfortunate is that library.g.o only has glib development
docs, but not gtk development docs.
That's probably because there are no tarball releases of GTK+ from svn
trunk at the moment. library.gnome.org can only use tarballs, I believe.
That is the
Dr. Michael J. Chudobiak wrote:
I have a jhbuild system set up, using the gnome-2.22 moduleset. That
pulls in trunk versions of some things (gedit) and non-trunk versions of
gtk+ (branches/gtk-2-12).
The GNOME 2.22 module set brings modules that will be part of GNOME
2.22, and that means
Martyn Russell wrote:
Actually, I noticed that it is on the wiki actually:
http://library.gnome.org/devel/gtk-faq/stable/
How is it put there, just simply generated from docbook and slightly
updated to fit into the style of the pages?
It is generated from the source tarballs, files
Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
- In http://library.gnome.org/developers/pango/ I see the following
available versions:
* 1.10
* 1.12
* 1.14
* 1.16
* 1.17
It makes sense to clearly mark 1.17 as devel/unstable.
I'll do this.
- Like others have said already, a
Tim Janik wrote:
- the above link http://library.gnome.org/developer/ doesn't actually work
- the front page links to http://library.gnome.org/devel/ which is
a directory listing
It is in the middle of a major rebuild, moving stuffs from
/developers/ to /devel/, as suggested by jdub.
Tim Janik wrote:
It is most certainly possible; I don't know how site-specific Google
search works.
here's the change for developer.g.o:
http://svn.gnome.org/viewcvs/web-devel-2?view=revisionrevision=4584
the same snippet is needed for library.g.o, just with both occourances
of
Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
It makes sense to clearly mark 1.17 as devel/unstable.
I'll do this.
Thanks.
It is now marked as devel, perhaps not emphasized enough.
http://library.gnome.org/devel/pango/
stable is link to latest stable release, and latest to latest
(eventually
Murray Cumming wrote:
http://library.gnome.org/developers/gtk/ is a page listing available
versions of the documentation; do you believe a latest symlink would
be useful ? As well as a stable symlink ?
I would [find] them very useful.
I just ran an update on library.gnome.org and such
David Nečas (Yeti) wrote:
do you believe a latest symlink would
be useful ? As well as a stable symlink ?
A stable or latest alias would be definitely useful, but...
This has been taken care of.
Let me explain: The conclusion on gtk-doc was that it is not
feasible to keep the on-line
David Nečas (Yeti) wrote:
See for instance the GTK+ API reference on:
http://library.gnome.org/developers/gtk/2.11/
What is the unversioned link to the latest available API
reference of a library?
http://library.gnome.org/developers/gtk/ is a page listing available
versions of the
22 matches
Mail list logo
