[Slackbuilds-users] pixbuf - redundant?

[Robby Workman]

On Wed, 29 Dec 2010 10:31:07 -0200
Niels Horn <niels.horn at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 9:53 AM,  <SlackBuilds at catcons.co.uk> wrote:
> > Hello  :-)
> >
> > I mailed the pixbuf maintainer about this but got a 550.
> >
> > While exploring how to set an icon for rxvt-unicode, I discovered
> > that pixbuf seems to be included in the standard Slackware 13.1
> > gtk+2-2.18.9 package.  Here's the evidence:
> >
> > root at CW8:~# grep pixbuf \
> > /var/log/packages/gtk+2-2.18.9-x86_64-1 | wc -l
> > 104
> >
> > Does that mean the pixbuf SlackBuild is redundant or does it
> > provide more functionality that the pixbuf in gtk+2?
> >
> 
> 
> There are many similarities, but the two versions are not equal and
> install in different locations.
> I honestly don't know about differences in functionality etc.
> 
> Anyway, in Slackware-current gdk-pixbuf has been officially added
> (Nov.14) so when that becomes 13.2/14.0 we'll have to remove
> gdk-pixbuf from SlackBuilds.org.
> 


I won't swear to this, but I believe the gdk-pixbuf2 in Slackware
is gtk+2's gdk-pixbuf, while the gdk-pixbuf we have at SBo is
for gtk+ (gtk *1*), so there's no conflict.

-RW
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.slackbuilds.org/pipermail/slackbuilds-users/attachments/20101229/e400429f/attachment.asc>