Summary: | gdk_pixbuf_new_from_file() fails on Gtk+ 2.14 and 2.16 | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Gentoo Linux | Reporter: | Joël <world.root> |
Component: | [OLD] GNOME | Assignee: | Gentoo Linux Gnome Desktop Team <gnome> |
Status: | RESOLVED DUPLICATE | ||
Severity: | normal | CC: | truedfx |
Priority: | High | ||
Version: | unspecified | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- | |
Attachments: | Here's frame_top.png (for those who don't have gkrellm installed) |
Description
Joël
2009-10-16 17:01:25 UTC
Created attachment 207330 [details]
Here's frame_top.png (for those who don't have gkrellm installed)
To run the testcase: gcc -Wall -o test test.c `pkg-config --cflags --libs gtk+-2.0` && ./test My test system is not a fresh install of Gentoo: it's a mix of x86 and ~x86 packages, and has been continually upgraded since about 2004. So perhaps there might be something lying around, that confuses gtk+ ? So far I only tried rebuilding glib and gtk+. Just to rule out one possibility: does this happen for all users on your system, or only the one you log in as? I'm asking because I've had the same problem, and it took a couple of hours to figure out I had corrupted files in my home directory. Hi Harald, Good idea, I didn't think of it. But no, unfortunately it's the same problem for a newly-created user. Pretty sure this is a dupe of bug #288312 Sorry, my Comment #4 was wrong: With a newly created user, gkrellm works perfectly ! And the testcase succeeds too. What should I try removing from my user dir ? Yes Samuli, you're right: removing ~/.local/share/mime solves the problem completely. No offense intended here, but it looks like the upstream gtk+ team did a _very_ bad design choice here. Did they assume that every user of gtk+ 2.4 will re-create their home directory from scratch ?? (In reply to comment #5 and comment #7) Closing as such. I wish the bug was there when I ran into this... didn't link it to the upgrade. :) Good that there's a warning for it now. (Personal opinion: mostly agreed, it wasn't necessarily a bad decision to change the format, but it was carried out horribly.) *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 288312 *** Agreed, Harald. And many thanks to you all :-) |