libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.o missing

Tiny Core Extensions > TCE Bugs

<< < (2/3) > >>

Rich:
Hi andyj

--- Quote from: andyj on February 23, 2021, 08:16:12 AM --- ... What did you change regarding rxvt? ...
--- End quote ---
I made no changes to rxvt. Nor would I without first consulting you.

--- Quote --- ... Is this something the maintainer (me) should know about? ...
--- End quote ---
Yes, yes it is.

All I did was diagnose the issue PDP-8 ran into:

--- Code: ---tc@E310:~/temp$ wget http://tinycorelinux.net/12.x/x86/tcz/rxvt.tcz
--2021-02-23 08:53:51-- http://tinycorelinux.net/12.x/x86/tcz/rxvt.tcz
Resolving tinycorelinux.net... 89.22.99.37
Connecting to tinycorelinux.net|89.22.99.37|:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
Length: 409600 (400K) [text/plain]
Saving to: 'rxvt.tcz'

rxvt.tcz 100%[====================================================>] 400.00K 982KB/s in 0.4s

2021-02-23 08:53:52 (982 KB/s) - 'rxvt.tcz' saved [409600/409600]

tc@E310:~/temp$ unsquashfs -d rxvt rxvt.tcz
Parallel unsquashfs: Using 2 processors
9 inodes (205 blocks) to write

[===========================================================================================================|] 205/205 100%

created 9 files
created 10 directories
created 0 symlinks
created 0 devices
created 0 fifos
tc@E310:~/temp$ ldd rxvt/usr/local/bin/urxvt 2>&1 | grep -i gdk
libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0 => /usr/local/lib/libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0 (0xb7c55000)
tc@E310:~/temp$
--- End code ---

--- Quote from: Rich on February 21, 2021, 10:19:45 AM --- ... Also, the rxvt.tcz.info files (x86 and x86_64) are out of date. They reflect the state of the TC10 version, even though
they were updated in TC11 and TC12. ...
--- End quote ---
Even though the .info files do not indicate it, changes were made to the 32 and 64 bit versions. Note the size differences.

32 bit:

--- Code: ----rw-rw-r-- 1 root staff 368640 Jul 6 2019 /10.x/x86/tcz/rxvt.tcz
-rw-rw-r-- 1 root staff 376832 Feb 8 2020 /11.x/x86/tcz/rxvt.tcz
-rw-rw-r-- 1 root staff 409600 Jan 30 18:48 /12.x/x86/tcz/rxvt.tcz
--- End code ---

64 bit:

--- Code: ----rw-rw-r-- 1 root staff 376832 Jul 6 2019 /10.x/x86_64/tcz/rxvt.tcz
-rw-rw-r-- 1 root staff 372736 Jul 6 2019 /11.x/x86_64/tcz/rxvt.tcz
-rw-rw-r-- 1 root staff 397312 Jan 30 18:50 /12.x/x86_64/tcz/rxvt.tcz
--- End code ---
I also don't know why the TC10 and TC11 versions both have a Jul 6 timestamp.

Maybe someone else submitted updates without first contacting you ??

andyj:
These are the build depenencies for rxvt:

xorg-proto
Xorg-7.7-dev
fontconfig-dev
libXft-dev
ncursesw-utils

Looking through the build logs I see in TC 11:

--- Code: ---checking for gdk-pixbuf-2.0... ok

--- End code ---

But in TC 12 (for now, because it wasn't loaded as dependency to something else):

--- Code: ---checking for gdk-pixbuf-2.0... no

--- End code ---

Rxvt will use gdk-pixbuf if it finds it, but it is apparently optional. I am not using this configure option:

--- Code: --- --enable-pixbuf enable integration with gdk-pixbuf for background images

--- End code ---

The question is, for consistency, shall I force it ON or OFF? What do we gain or lose?

I took this to indicate rxvt.tcz.dep was changed:

--- Quote from: Rich on February 21, 2021, 10:19:45 AM ---Updated the rxvt.tcz.dep file in the TC12 x86 repository.

--- End quote ---

--- Quote from: Rich on February 23, 2021, 09:27:43 AM ---Hi andyj

--- Quote from: andyj on February 23, 2021, 08:16:12 AM --- ... What did you change regarding rxvt? ...
--- End quote ---
I made no changes to rxvt. Nor would I without first consulting you.

--- End quote ---

Between these two comments I'm confused.

I use submitqc to calculate the size. I do recompile all the extensions I maintain for each TC version change, but I don't normally mark them as changed in the changelog if nothing else of any significance has changed. I used to say they were recompiled, but with over 200 info files I've gotten lazy and I don't put that in anymore unless there is another change too.

Rich:
Hi andyj

--- Quote from: andyj on February 23, 2021, 10:22:24 AM --- ... Between these two comments I'm confused. ...
--- End quote ---
I did not change rxvt.tcz. I did add gdk-pixbuf2.tcz to the rxvt.tcz.dep file in the TC12 x86 repository.
Correcting a dependency file after submission is not an unusual event.

--- Quote --- ... The question is, for consistency, shall I force it ON or OFF? What do we gain or lose? ...
--- End quote ---
I don't know the answers to those questions. I just ran ldd on the 6 extensions and determined that only the
32 bit TC12 version had a dependency on gdk-pixbuf2.tcz. I added that to the dependency file and noted that in my
post so you would be aware of it.

--- Quote --- ... but I don't normally mark them as changed in the changelog if nothing else of any significance has changed. I used to say they were recompiled, but with over 200 info files I've gotten lazy and I don't put that in anymore unless there is another change too.
--- End quote ---
I can appreciate that, but there are times when knowing that information can be useful, even if only recompiled.

Example:
A bug shows up because the compiler (or linker, or a dependency, etc.) behavior changed in some way, but there
is no record of anything changing.

Example:
Someone notices an extension was changed across 2 releases, but the change log indicates otherwise. So that
individual spends 45 minutes searching the forum to see who else might have sent in an update. ;)

andyj:
Experimenting with the rxvt builds, if I add support for Asian fonts (ZH, KR, and JP, used by >10**9 people), background images via pixbuf and 24-bit color it about doubles in size to just under 700k. The question is how much bloat can we tolerate in TC vs wide support?

curaga:
We don't tend to have many Asian users, since their native text entry systems require a lot of pieces not present here. They get a better experience using the big distros.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version