On 01/07/06, jiho <jo.irisson@...400...> wrote:
On 01 Jul 2006, at 14:38 , jiho wrote:
That is true and to compile Inkscape on OS X you need Fink unstable anyway and hence you have: gtk+2 2.6.10-1001 gtkmm2.4 2.6.4-1001 I sent an email to the maintainers of GTK packages in Fink to have an idea of their schedule. It might be pretty long term given that the team maintains all gnome packages in Fink. I'll give update as soon as I receive news from them.
Here is the answer I received from Fink GTK packages maintainers.
[...snip...] I was wondering about the schedule of the integration of version 2.8 in Fink (given that 2.10 should be out shortly). [...snip...]
To be honest, I think mostly people are afraid to touch it. :)
I think what it will need is a concerted effort to hack up all of the gtk-using packages to be updated (in the manner we did to move to the 10.4 tree) and get everything moved at once.
so it seems nothing will happen in the near future :-)
Hmm.
(Quick work BTW).
Like the basic fink plan, I have been avoiding /sw and /usr/local for installing libraries that I have built myself. (I use /jaguar , /panther ).
My original point was that we may need to plan on nothing much happening in the near future or indeed at all.
If we can have the luxury of planning, we really need 2.10; and it would be by far the best if the fink team could deliver that.
If not, what would be the possibility of one of us producing the packages we really need, gtk, gtkmm and sigc++ for fink unstable. Would this have an adverse effect on the fink project? Would there be a burden of maintenance/security patches that would make this impossible.
If nothing is done then we might end up having to label some of these libraries as 'fourth party' (fink being the third party) and install them in /inkscape perhaps needing to place these versions in our svn.
What about Universal Binaries?
I dread to think what the instructions for building Mac Inkscape will look like ...
Ben