no objections. On Mon, 2003-09-29 at 03:50, Murray Cumming wrote: > If nobody has any objections, I'll make a couple of minor fixes to the > gnome-print website in cvs: > - correct the mailing list address > - Add some bugs/patches bugzilla query URLs. >
I decided to try to get libgnomeprintui building with HEAD GTK+. I started out by trying to port the deprecated widgets to the new version, but soon discovered that there are millions of option menus. This patch moves a couple over, and removes -DG*_DISABLE_DEPRECATED from the Makefile for now. At some point we'll have to move port all the option menus, but for now, this will at least get it compiling. Thanks, -Jonathan
On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 03:18:54PM -0400, Jonathan Blandford wrote:
> I decided to try to get libgnomeprintui building with HEAD GTK+. I
> started out by trying to port the deprecated widgets to the new version,
> but soon discovered that there are millions of option menus. This patch
> moves a couple over, and removes -DG*_DISABLE_DEPRECATED from the
> Makefile for now. At some point we'll have to move port all the option
> menus, but for now, this will at least get it compiling.
Please commit, the option menu changes, but not the deprecated
removal. I'd rather be more precise and just remove the
GTK_DISABLE_DEPRECATED than all of them.
Thanks.
Jody
Jody Goldberg <jody <at> gnome.org> writes: > On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 03:18:54PM -0400, Jonathan Blandford wrote: > > I decided to try to get libgnomeprintui building with HEAD GTK+. I > > started out by trying to port the deprecated widgets to the new version, > > but soon discovered that there are millions of option menus. This patch > > moves a couple over, and removes -DG*_DISABLE_DEPRECATED from the > > Makefile for now. At some point we'll have to move port all the option > > menus, but for now, this will at least get it compiling. > > Please commit, the option menu changes, but not the deprecated > removal. I'd rather be more precise and just remove the > GTK_DISABLE_DEPRECATED than all of them. I'm going to have to commit the GNOME_DISABLE_DEPRECATED as well, as it publically references GTK_DISABLE_DEPRECATED code. But I can put back the other checks. -Jonathan
On Friday 12 September 2003 20:27, Andris Pavenis wrote:
> On Friday 12 September 2003 20:04, Andris Pavenis wrote:
> > Several libgnomeprintui test examples crashes under Linux when the
> > default printer is accessed using CUPS (I have setup CUPS to print to
> > shared windows printer on other computer). The same things happens also
> > in my own program.
> >
> > I have verified that it happens in call gnome_print_job_print().
> > There is no similar problems when:
> > 1) printing to file in both Postscript and PDF formats
> > 2) printing to the same printer using lpr (generic postscript + lpr)
> >
> > libgnomeprintui examples (eg. example[23]) behaves in the same way
> > (same traceback) but I haven't studied more detailed. example1 seems to
> > work.
> >
> > System: Pentium III, Slackware-current, GCC-3.3.1, ...
>
> forgot to mention: libgnomeprint-2.3.1, libgnomeprintui-2.3.1,
Now libgnomeprint-2.4.0, libgnomeprintui-2.4.0
Found a workaround for this problem:
after linking application with libcups.so it no more crashes. Here is output
from ldd:
bash-2.05b$ ldd /usr/lib/libgnomeprint-2-2.so.0.1.0
libart_lgpl_2.so.2 => /usr/lib/libart_lgpl_2.so.2 (0x40457000)
libpango-1.0.so.0 => /usr/lib/libpango-1.0.so.0 (0x4046e000)
libgobject-2.0.so.0 => /usr/lib/libgobject-2.0.so.0 (0x404a1000)
libgmodule-2.0.so.0 => /usr/lib/libgmodule-2.0.so.0 (0x404d6000)
(Continue reading)Jonathan, This arrived today: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=124671 does it have anything to do with the change? Chema On Tue, 2003-10-14 at 17:48, Jonathan Blandford wrote: > Jody Goldberg <jody <at> gnome.org> writes: > > > On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 03:18:54PM -0400, Jonathan Blandford wrote: > > > I decided to try to get libgnomeprintui building with HEAD GTK+. I > > > started out by trying to port the deprecated widgets to the new version, > > > but soon discovered that there are millions of option menus. This patch > > > moves a couple over, and removes -DG*_DISABLE_DEPRECATED from the > > > Makefile for now. At some point we'll have to move port all the option > > > menus, but for now, this will at least get it compiling. > > > > Please commit, the option menu changes, but not the deprecated > > removal. I'd rather be more precise and just remove the > > GTK_DISABLE_DEPRECATED than all of them. > > I'm going to have to commit the GNOME_DISABLE_DEPRECATED as well, as > it publically references GTK_DISABLE_DEPRECATED code. But I can put > back the other checks. > > -Jonathan > _______________________________________________(Continue reading)
Chema Celorio <chema <at> ximian.com> writes: > Jonathan, > > This arrived today: > http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=124671 > > does it have anything to do with the change? Yeah. He's trying to compile it against GTK+-2.2, and not 2.4. He should compile against the gnome-2-4 tag or update his GTK+. We should probably update the configure check there, though. Thanks, -Jonathan
Thanks to the wonderful folk at Ximian I'm going to get a chance to
start picking up the slack in libgnomeprint* and get development
kicked back into gear.
After some discussion with Chema I've joined the MAINTAINERS file,
and started reviewing some pending patches. As you've probably
noticed the trees have been branched and there is now a :
WARNING
This is the _development_ branch, and currently requires unreleased
versions of gtk+ out of CVS.
to HEAD. Please note that I do not claim to know my way around the
tree from an implementation perspective as yet. Hopefully, that
will change quickly. Given the current state of the tree we've got
our work cut out for us. Some of the topics that seem high on the
priority list are :
- merge in Ximian's cups work
- improve integration with fontconfig and pango
- fix the memory explosion associated with the meta stream
I'll be triaging bugzilla shortly to get a feel for things. Please
post pet bugs and irritations to the list and we can start getting a
TODO list in place.
Best Wishes,
Jody
On Thu, Oct 16, 2003 at 11:01:15AM -0400, Jonathan Blandford wrote: > Chema Celorio <chema <at> ximian.com> writes: > > > Jonathan, > > > > This arrived today: > > http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=124671 > > > > does it have anything to do with the change? > > Yeah. He's trying to compile it against GTK+-2.2, and not 2.4. He > should compile against the gnome-2-4 tag or update his GTK+. We should > probably update the configure check there, though. fixed.
Hi Jody, It's good to hear that some works are going into this now. That would give use a good few months to make things right for 2.6 release :) What is the branch tag? Now that I have integrated some of the excellent works by Dave and Chemo into our distros, I would like to at least follow some of the discussion here ;) -Ghee Jody Goldberg wrote: > Thanks to the wonderful folk at Ximian I'm going to get a chance to > start picking up the slack in libgnomeprint* and get development > kicked back into gear. > > After some discussion with Chema I've joined the MAINTAINERS file, > and started reviewing some pending patches. As you've probably > noticed the trees have been branched and there is now a : > > WARNING > This is the _development_ branch, and currently requires unreleased > versions of gtk+ out of CVS. > > to HEAD. Please note that I do not claim to know my way around the > tree from an implementation perspective as yet. Hopefully, that > will change quickly. Given the current state of the tree we've got > our work cut out for us. Some of the topics that seem high on the > priority list are : > - merge in Ximian's cups work > - improve integration with fontconfig and pango(Continue reading)
RSS Feed1 | |
|---|---|
2 | |
1 | |
3 | |
1 | |
1 | |
3 | |
1 | |
1 | |
1 | |
2 | |
2 | |
6 | |
5 | |
5 | |
21 | |
22 | |
2 | |
29 | |
13 | |
39 | |
6 | |
8 | |
9 | |
26 | |
18 | |
31 | |
29 | |
46 | |
62 | |
4 | |
6 | |
25 | |
6 | |
8 | |
9 | |
10 | |
24 | |
17 | |
6 | |
6 | |
4 | |
2 | |
4 | |
48 | |
24 | |
58 | |
4 | |
4 | |
11 | |
5 | |
29 | |
18 | |
50 | |
7 | |
10 | |
4 | |
6 | |
4 | |
2 |
