Opened 8 years ago
Closed 8 years ago
#7054 closed enhancement (fixed)
gdk-pixbuf-2.32.3
| Reported by: | Fernando de Oliveira | Owned by: | Fernando de Oliveira |
|---|---|---|---|
| Priority: | normal | Milestone: | 7.9 |
| Component: | BOOK | Version: | SVN |
| Severity: | normal | Keywords: | |
| Cc: |
Description (last modified by )
http://ftp.gnome.org/pub/gnome/sources/gdk-pixbuf/2.32/gdk-pixbuf-2.32.3.tar.xz
http://ftp.gnome.org/pub/gnome/sources/gdk-pixbuf/2.32/gdk-pixbuf-2.32.3.sha256sum
2b6771f1ac72f687a8971e59810b8dc658e65e7d3086bd2e676e618fd541d031
http://ftp.gnome.org/pub/gnome/sources/gdk-pixbuf/2.32/gdk-pixbuf-2.32.2.news
http://ftp.gnome.org/pub/gnome/sources/gdk-pixbuf/2.32/gdk-pixbuf-2.32.3.news
2.32.3 ====== * Fix two crashes in the bmp loader (#747605, #758991) * ico: integer overflow fixes * Translation updates 2.32.2 ====== * Avoid some integer overflow possibilities in scaling code * Translation updates
Change History (7)
comment:1 by , 8 years ago
comment:2 by , 8 years ago
| Milestone: | 7.9 → hold |
|---|---|
| Priority: | normal → low |
| Summary: | gdk-pixbuf-2.33.1 → gdk-pixbuf-2.33.1 unstable (placeholder) |
Thanks, Ken.
Changing to placeholder.
comment:3 by , 8 years ago
| Description: | modified (diff) |
|---|---|
| Milestone: | hold → 7.9 |
| Priority: | low → normal |
| Summary: | gdk-pixbuf-2.33.1 unstable (placeholder) → gdk-pixbuf-2.32.3 |
comment:4 by , 8 years ago
| Owner: | changed from to |
|---|---|
| Status: | new → assigned |
comment:5 by , 8 years ago
| Owner: | changed from to |
|---|---|
| Status: | assigned → new |
I am stopping for today. Sorry, did not expect ticket #7252 would take so long.
Giving back to the book, but if any is still unassigned, will take it (them) again, tomorrow.
comment:6 by , 8 years ago
| Owner: | changed from to |
|---|---|
| Status: | new → assigned |
Note:
See TracTickets
for help on using tickets.
Replying to fo:
We always used to use stable versions, and you moved to 2.31.1 in September 2014. At that time, the justification was that gnome-3.14 listed the development version. http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/blfs-book/2014-September/047183.html
So, until there is a similar requirement to use a development version, I suggest we stick to stable.