I think the commit that got reverted did fix this bug : http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=566846 But the commit below does not, as there are several other places where the PixbufImageSurface constructor is called before checking if the pixbuf is null. The above bug has a patch that adds those checks. It's a bit tedious, but no API changes. Let me know if it's OK. PS : In those commits e-mails, shouldn't the Reply-To be set to banshee-list ? -- Bertrand Lorentz <bertrand lorentz gmail com> > http://flickr.com/photos/bl8/ < On Fri, 2009-05-29 at 23:26 -0400, Aaron Bockover wrote: > commit 4dfd38cb169b2813b4eab66f5ac7ff088c125d20 > Author: Aaron Bockover <abockover novell com> > Date: Fri May 29 23:28:10 2009 -0400 > > [ArtworkManager] Check pixbuf.Handle before using the Pixbuf > > This commit solves the same problem as the commit that broke > existing API and introduced awkward API that provided a false > sense of security: 07edaeff263b2c74d38758d48ac0102e987c1f1b > --- > .../Banshee.Collection.Gui/ArtworkManager.cs | 2 +- > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/src/Core/Banshee.ThickClient/Banshee.Collection.Gui/ArtworkManager.cs b/src/Core/Banshee.ThickClient/Banshee.Collection.Gui/ArtworkManager.cs > index 0c2941a..86fef23 100644 > --- a/src/Core/Banshee.ThickClient/Banshee.Collection.Gui/ArtworkManager.cs > +++ b/src/Core/Banshee.ThickClient/Banshee.Collection.Gui/ArtworkManager.cs > @@ -120,7 +120,7 @@ namespace Banshee.Collection.Gui > } > > Pixbuf pixbuf = LookupScalePixbuf (id, size); > - if (pixbuf == null) { > + if (pixbuf == null || pixbuf.Handle == IntPtr.Zero) { > return null; > } > > _______________________________________________ > SVN-commits-list mailing list (read only) > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-commits-list > > Want to limit the commits to a few modules? Go to above URL, log in to edit your options and select the modules ('topics') you want.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part