On 01 Jul 2006, at 18:06 , Ben Fowler wrote:
On 01/07/06, jiho <jo.irisson@...400...> wrote:
On 01 Jul 2006, at 14:38 , jiho wrote:
[snip] I sent an email to the maintainers of GTK packages in Fink to have an idea of their schedule. [snip]
so it seems nothing will happen in the near future :-)
[snip] 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.
I asked Benjamain Reed if it was possible to provide both gtk2.4 and gtk2.8 (or 2.10) in fink so that other packages do not necessarily need to be updated.
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Benjamin Reed" <rangerrick@...400...> On 7/1/06, jiho <jo.irisson@...400...> wrote:
Thank you very much for the answer. Wouldn't it be possible to have both gtk 2.8 (for some "cutting edge" apps) and gtk 2.4 for compatibility reasons, so that every package does not have to move to 2.8 at once?
it would be hard to make them coexist without getting in the way of other packages... It would mean making an entire second tree of everything gnome-based, ultimately. Better to upgrade what we've got, it will just take a little planning.
so it seems that even if one of us provides packages for gtk, there will be an enormous additional work from the fink team to get all other gtk-depending packages working. In addition, given that we do not even provide an up-to-date fink package for Inkscape itself, I am afraid providing packages for GTK will be difficult ;-)
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.
I don't think that adding all gtk in svn will be acceptable. The only possibility IMHO, if 2.8 is really needed and that Fink does not provide it, is to get the few people compiling Inkscape for OS X to install it separately (we should be 3 or 4 max) and ship inkscape only as dmg packages (i.e. there won't be a new fink package until fink updates GTK but there is no up to date package currently anyway). Considering present situation, it is not much of a problem since there are very few people compiling inkscape on OS X. It's not a very promising solution for the long run though.
What about Universal Binaries?
I know that obtaining an universal binary of an XCode project is a matter of clicking a button but do not know much more. I guess it might be more complicated than that for non OS X'ish programs.
JiHO --- Windows, c'est un peu comme le beaujolais nouveau : a chaque nouvelle cuvee on sait que ce sera degueulasse, mais on en prend quand meme par masochisme. --- http://jo.irisson.free.fr/