On Fri, 2011-12-09 at 07:51 +0100, Koen Kooi wrote:
> Op 8 dec. 2011, om 22:59 heeft Richard Purdie het volgende geschreven:
>
> > On Thu, 2011-12-08 at 17:12 +, Phil Blundell wrote:
> >> On Thu, 2011-12-08 at 16:55 +, Richard Purdie wrote:
> >>> The question is whether it makes sense to h
On Fri, 2011-12-09 at 11:25 +0100, Koen Kooi wrote:
> gtk 2.x is one of the few places where directfb/x11/whatever conflict,
> so if I want directfb support for sane things (gtk 3.x, qt, etc) the
> current patch will make me jump through a ton of hoops.
Well, you can set:
# support both graphical
Op 9 dec. 2011, om 11:08 heeft Phil Blundell het volgende geschreven:
> On Fri, 2011-12-09 at 07:51 +0100, Koen Kooi wrote:
>> So to be safe and give other directfb implementations a change, can
>> this PACKAGECONFIG option be named 'gtk-directfb' in DISTRO_FEATURES?
>
> I don't think I quite un
On Fri, 2011-12-09 at 07:51 +0100, Koen Kooi wrote:
> So to be safe and give other directfb implementations a change, can
> this PACKAGECONFIG option be named 'gtk-directfb' in DISTRO_FEATURES?
I don't think I quite understand what you're saying there. Can you
expand on why this would be a good t
Op 8 dec. 2011, om 22:59 heeft Richard Purdie het volgende geschreven:
> On Thu, 2011-12-08 at 17:12 +, Phil Blundell wrote:
>> On Thu, 2011-12-08 at 16:55 +, Richard Purdie wrote:
>>> The question is whether it makes sense to have directfb and X based gtk
>>> in the same builds and packa
On Thu, 2011-12-08 at 17:12 +, Phil Blundell wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-12-08 at 16:55 +, Richard Purdie wrote:
> > The question is whether it makes sense to have directfb and X based gtk
> > in the same builds and package feeds or not. I can see that it might be
> > desired and that it likely i
On Thu, 2011-12-08 at 16:55 +, Richard Purdie wrote:
> The question is whether it makes sense to have directfb and X based gtk
> in the same builds and package feeds or not. I can see that it might be
> desired and that it likely is possible.
This is true, though there's nothing to stop a dist
On Thu, 2011-12-08 at 11:14 +0100, Koen Kooi wrote:
> Op 8 dec. 2011, om 10:34 heeft Xiaofeng Yan het volgende geschreven:
>
> > From: Xiaofeng Yan
> >
> > gtk run over x11 at current OE-core. If gtk want to run over directfb, then
> > \
> > the configuration related to x11 should be disabled a
On Thu, 2011-12-08 at 11:14 +0100, Koen Kooi wrote:
> Op 8 dec. 2011, om 10:34 heeft Xiaofeng Yan het volgende geschreven:
>
> > From: Xiaofeng Yan
> >
> > gtk run over x11 at current OE-core. If gtk want to run over directfb, then
> > \
> > the configuration related to x11 should be disabled a
Op 8 dec. 2011, om 10:34 heeft Xiaofeng Yan het volgende geschreven:
> From: Xiaofeng Yan
>
> gtk run over x11 at current OE-core. If gtk want to run over directfb, then \
> the configuration related to x11 should be disabled and directfb should be
> enabled.
Since I still can't get an answer
From: Xiaofeng Yan
gtk run over x11 at current OE-core. If gtk want to run over directfb, then \
the configuration related to x11 should be disabled and directfb should be
enabled.
[YOCTO #1674]
Signed-off-by: Xiaofeng Yan
---
meta/recipes-gnome/gtk+/gtk+.inc | 13 ++---
1 files ch
Op 7 dec. 2011, om 09:58 heeft Xiaofeng Yan het volgende geschreven:
> From: Xiaofeng Yan
>
> gtk run over x11 at current OE-core. If gtk want to run over directfb, then \
> the configuration related to x11 should be disabled and directfb should be
> enabled.
So what happens when I put both d
From: Xiaofeng Yan
gtk run over x11 at current OE-core. If gtk want to run over directfb, then \
the configuration related to x11 should be disabled and directfb should be
enabled.
[YOCTO #1674]
Signed-off-by: Xiaofeng Yan
---
meta/recipes-gnome/gtk+/gtk+.inc | 13 ++---
1 files ch
13 matches
Mail list logo
