On Saturday 20 October 2007, walt wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 17:26:09 -0700, stevem wrote:
> > On Saturday 20 October 2007, Dave Chand wrote:
> >> Is it a pan bug or a gtk bug? Please let us know what Matthias has
> >> to say about this.
> >
> > I filed a bug against gtk+2.0 with all the informat
On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 17:26:09 -0700, stevem wrote:
> On Saturday 20 October 2007, Dave Chand wrote:
>> Is it a pan bug or a gtk bug? Please let us know what Matthias has to
>> say about this.
> I filed a bug against gtk+2.0 with all the information from this list...
What is the number of your bu
On Saturday 20 October 2007, Greg Lee wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 19:11:19 -0400, Dave Chand wrote:
> > Is it a pan bug or a gtk bug? Please let us know what Matthias has to
> > say about this.
>
> I guess that's going to be a matter of opinion, but mine is
> that it's a gtk bug. If the routine g
On Saturday 20 October 2007, Dave Chand wrote:
> I like Brian's patch, but I wonder what changed from gtk+2.10 to gtk
> +2.12, to cause this problem?
> Is it a pan bug or a gtk bug? Please let us know what Matthias has to
> say about this.
>
I filed a bug against gtk+2.0 with all the information fr
On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 19:11:19 -0400, Dave Chand wrote:
> Is it a pan bug or a gtk bug? Please let us know what Matthias has to
> say about this.
I guess that's going to be a matter of opinion, but mine is
that it's a gtk bug. If the routine gdk_pixbuf_loader_write has
the limitation that it can o
On Oct 20, 2007, at 1:07 PM, walt wrote:
I just sent this question to Matthias Clasen, who increased that
number
from 4096 back in 2002. It seems that a pixbuf sets an arbitrary size
limit on how much data can be loaded in a single chunk. The real
question is whether that limit is intention
On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 23:39:25 -0400, Dave Chand wrote:
> On Oct 6, 2007, at 6:58 PM, Greg Lee wrote:
>
>> I looked at some other 1 part images in this same newsgroup and found
>> that all those with byte size <= 369052 displayed correctly, but all
>> those with byte size >= 369361 displayed incorr
On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 23:39:25 -0400, Dave Chand wrote:
> I have been experimenting with gdk-pixbuf. What I find is the following:
> in the file gtk+2.12.x/gdk-pixbuf/io-jpeg.c there is the statement
> #define JPEG_PROG_BUF_SIZE 65536
> if you change its value to something significantly higher, such
On Friday 19 October 2007, Dave Chand wrote:
> On Oct 6, 2007, at 6:58 PM, Greg Lee wrote:
>
> I have been experimenting with gdk-pixbuf. What I find is the
> following: in the file gtk+2.12.x/gdk-pixbuf/io-jpeg.c
> there is the statement
> #define JPEG_PROG_BUF_SIZE 65536
> if you change its value
