Re: svg pixbuf loader on Windows

["Tor Lillqvist" <tml iki fi>]

> Thanks for this. I think I have the stuff and I think I have poked it in
> the right places, but so far no joy. The gdk-pixbuf.loaders file in the
> directory below c:/program files/Denemo seems to be ignored.

Ah. I forgot to mention that when installing a new gdk-pixbuf loader,
you indeed need to either 1) run the gdk-pixbuf-query-loaders program
and redirect its output to the corresponding gdk-pixbuf.loaders file
(thus refreshing the list of loaders GTK+ knows about), or 2) edit the
gdk-pixbuf.loaders file manually to add an entry for the new loader.
(If there was an installer for the new loader, the installer should
take care of this.)

> But I can hide it in the Denemo tree and I get no complaint. I
> am not sure that Denemo needs other pixbuf loaders

I don't know what Denemo is, but the explanation might be that if the
executable you are running is not a console executable, you won't see
any warning it tries to print to stderr. Run it from a command prompt
and redirect stderr to a file, or to a pipe to more, for instance...

> (are the standard gtk icons loaded with one?).

The standard icons are built-in in the libgtk DLL binary, yes.

> In any case the contents of the
> gdk-pixbuf.loaders file looks suspicious, entries like
>
> "c:/devel/target/gtk+-2.8.9/lib/gtk-2.0/2.4.0/loaders/libpixbufloader-xpm.dll"
>
> /devel is not (never has been) a path on my windows partition.

The paths in the gdk-pixbuf.loaders file don't need to be real
existing paths for those cases where they point to loaders included
with that particular build of GTK+. See
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=462433#c5 for instance for
an often repeated explanation. In this case, the GTK+ 2.8.9 binaries
were built with a compile-time prefix of c:/devel/target/gtk+-2.8.9,
and paths in the gdk-pixbuf.loaders file that start with that work
even when GTK+ then is actually installed anywhere on the end-user
machine.

But GTK+ 2.8.9 was ages ago (umm, December 2005 it seems). The svg
loader I pointed you to most probably won't work with such an old GTK+
anyway.

> Finally, (if I am not trying your patience too far) do I need to be
> worrying about 2.4.0 versus 2.10.0, or will it be happy at runtime with
> anything it finds below gtk-2.0?

Hard to say. You might be lucky and it works.

> I ask because all the earlier pixbuf
> loaders had a different naming convention (libpixbufloader-gif.dll while
> the svg one was just svg_loader.dll),

That naming difference is mostly coincidental (an artefact of
differences in how the Makefile.am files in question were written) and
not a problem as such.

--tml