I just had an interesting experience.

I decided I needed to start writing Gtk+ apps in 2.0, so I started out
with the helloworld code in the 2.0 tutorial. Cut and pasted. When I
tried to compile it, the errors looked like I was compiling the kernel:
just kept on rolling the screen!

After due consultation with the Gtk+ folk, I downloaded the source code
for the version of Gtk+ included with 10.0: gtk+2-2.4.3-i486-1. The
source code was gtk+-2.4.3. Compiled and installed it on the /usr/local
level.

Comparing the installed header files for gdk-pixbuf was a revelation:
wildly different! Looked like someone had added a bunch of stuff to
several header files and even included two *.xh files in the Slackware
package. What is going on here?

Where did Pat Volkerding get his packages? Or did he modify them
himself? I know he doesn't like Gnome, but have never heard anything
about the gtk code. Gtk+-1.2 works just fine, incidentally.

Anyone have a clue about this? My installation is still box stock: all
new stuff is at /usr/local, leaving /usr strictly distro stuff.

I guess the point is that unless this is resolved, I'll not be inclined
to trust Slackware development packages in the future, and that's a Bad
Thing (tm)!

Longfellow

On 2006-07-16, Longfellow <not@this.address> wrote:
> I just had an interesting experience.
>
> I decided I needed to start writing Gtk+ apps in 2.0, so I started out
> with the helloworld code in the 2.0 tutorial. Cut and pasted. When I
> tried to compile it, the errors looked like I was compiling the kernel:
> just kept on rolling the screen!
>
> After due consultation with the Gtk+ folk, I downloaded the source code
> for the version of Gtk+ included with 10.0: gtk+2-2.4.3-i486-1. The
> source code was gtk+-2.4.3. Compiled and installed it on the /usr/local
> level.
>
> Comparing the installed header files for gdk-pixbuf was a revelation:
> wildly different! Looked like someone had added a bunch of stuff to
> several header files and even included two *.xh files in the Slackware
> package. What is going on here?
>
> Where did Pat Volkerding get his packages? Or did he modify them
> himself? I know he doesn't like Gnome, but have never heard anything
> about the gtk code. Gtk+-1.2 works just fine, incidentally.
>
> Anyone have a clue about this? My installation is still box stock: all
> new stuff is at /usr/local, leaving /usr strictly distro stuff.
>
> I guess the point is that unless this is resolved, I'll not be inclined
> to trust Slackware development packages in the future, and that's a Bad
> Thing (tm)!
>
> Longfellow

Apologies for having cast aspersions on Slackware.

"Some people say a distro's to blame,
But I know:
It's my own damn fault!"

Never, ever, ever install newer versions without removing the older ones
and doing the ldconfig stuff! Guess I've lost all hope of ever
attaining BOZO status...

Dumped all the extraneous stuff, replaced the newer versions with the
one's from the CD, did 'ldconfig' and it all "just works". Also
compiles Gtk+-2.0 apps without comment.

A very contrite,

Longfellow

Longfellow <not@this.address> trolled:

> Never, ever, ever install newer versions without removing the
> older ones and doing the ldconfig stuff! Guess I've lost all hope
> of ever attaining BOZO status...

bozo status? Are you ill? Why would you want to be known as a
bozo? Bozos are the people who fuck things up, not fix them.

cordially, as always,

rm

On 2006-07-18, Realto Margarino <rm@youasked.org> wrote:

> bozo status? Are you ill? Why would you want to be known as a
> bozo? Bozos are the people who fuck things up, not fix them.

Bozo the Clown was a marketing phenomena, eventually evolving into a
$150G business.

nb

notbob <notbob@nothome.com> trolled:
> On 2006-07-18, Realto Margarino <rm@youasked.org> wrote:

> > bozo status? Are you ill? Why would you want to be known as a
> > bozo? Bozos are the people who fuck things up, not fix them.

> Bozo the Clown was a marketing phenomena, eventually evolving into
> a $150G business.

Maybe so, but in this ng a "bozo" is simply another name for an
idiot.

cordially, as always,

rm