gtk_tree_view_remove_column was first removing the column from
its list, then call gtk_tree_view_column_unset_tree_view, which
would then call gtk_container_remove to remove its button from
the treeview. But the treeview remove implementation relied
on the column being still in the list in order to recognize
the button as 'special', so in effect the button was never
properly removed and thus, leaked.
Fix this by callling unset_tree_view before removing the
column from the list.
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=724891
c287845240 was trying to fix
the memory leak caused by popovers begin destroyed in
gtk_window_destroy before chaining up to gtk_widget_destroy,
which unrealizes the window, and would clean up the popover
windows if the popovers were still around.
Fix this in a better way by moving the popover destruction
after the chaining up, so we unrealize first, and then
destroy the popovers.
Also, make _gtk_window_remove_popover unrealize the popover,
for symmetry with _gtk_window_add_popover.
This should fix
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=724921
Normally, a GtkAboutDialog is shown using the convenience
API. But if you manually construct one and show it by calling
gtk_widget_show_all() on it, the license tab would show up
uninvited. Fix that.
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=724411
Add some flexibility in the property sheets for one building GTK+ that it
also searches for a settable installation path of Python, in addition to
searching the PATH for an installation of the Python interpretor. This
currently defaults to Python 2.7.x, which is normally installed in
c:\python27 on Windows by default. Also tell people in the README.txt's
for the Visual Studio builds
In practice this shape is only used to outline the popover when it is
above native windows, in the most normal full-csw case the shape won't apply
visibly, so popovers will still be able to cast a shadow there.
If there are native windows below the popover, the shape will exclude the
shadow, so there are no alpha contents above the window. One worst case that
might happen is that the popover lays above patches of native/client-side
windows, so the shadow could come and go around the border. But first let's
see whether that happens often or visibly enough before adding something more
convoluted.
The update of the needs-attention state is done via its own property,
so it doesn't need to be done via visibility changes.
This patch is largely the result of inspecting the code due to a warning
and not a result of testing. So if issues pop up that bisect back to
this patch, that's why.
And document the fact that the popover will get destroyed if
a NULL relative-to is given on a parented popover, if no extra
references are kept.
For gtk_popover_new*(), a NULL relative-to will leave the widget
as a floating object, to be sunk by a later call to
gtk_widget_set_relative_to().
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=724407
