On Feb 2, 2006, at 5:07 PM, Alan Horkan wrote:
On Thu, 2 Feb 2006, Nathaniel Gray wrote:
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 11:57:00 -0800 From: Nathaniel Gray <n8gray@...1176...> To: inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: [Inkscape-devel] Standalone GTK+ v2 installer (or project?) for OS X
Hello Inkscape Devels,
First, thank you for your work on Inkscape! It's a really great
There are now a number of projects that package a gtk+ application into a "standalone" OS X app. For example, Inkscape and GIMPshop both
those same dependencies. You end up with multiple copies of some pretty big libraries lying around taking up space on disk and in
As a solution to these problems, I would like to suggest packaging a complete install of gtk+ and its dependencies separately from
If you care most about disk space sure this make a lot of sense.
Actually, disk space is not my primary concern at all. As a secondary concern, it's quite painful to think of the memory impact of running more than one of these "standalone" apps simultaneously, each with its own copy of gtk+ and all supporting libraries. But really, performance isn't the main issue. What bothers me is that there are lots of great gtk+ apps out there that we could have on OS X, but at the moment getting them means spending hours building gtk+ and all its dependencies from source, then rebuilding it all when the next version comes out. That sort of thing just doesn't fly in the Mac community, so nobody uses those apps. I think that's a bad thing for everybody involved.
It hurts usability though.
Reviews have praised Inkscape for bundling everything and making the install process a lot easier than the GNU Image Manipulation Program and it also makes it easier for use to get people to test Inkscape and make sure they have all the latest versions of everything. Inkscape often requires the latest and greatest version of GTK so it make a lot of sense to just package everything.
Trust me, I'm one of the guys who was really really happy to see a standalone download for Inkscape, but remember that the alternative up to that point was to build everything yourself from source. If Inkscape.app installation took two steps (install gtk+ framework then install Inkscape.app) instead of one I don't think anybody would be terribly upset, especially if it meant that other apps were able to build on the shared infrastructure. Note that I'm *not* suggesting that each dependency be packaged separately so Inkscape installation becomes a 16 step process, just that there be a baseline "gtk+2" package that's easy for end users to download and install.
If we have more resources it might be possible to do both but we dont.
A good reason to coordinate with Gimp.app, GIMPshop, and any other gtk + project who wants to deliver an OS X executable! Consider this. At the moment each of you is kludging gtk+ into your app bundles, munging paths and doing all kinds of unsavory things to make a shared resource seem like a private one. What's more, each of you is doing so without help from the others! Just having the shared resource stay shared and cooperating between your projects could *reduce* the amount of work you do. It could become as simple as packaging up a straightforward Fink/DarwinPorts gtk+ install and shipping it.
Anyhow, I hope you'll consider this proposal seriously. I honestly believe it could open the door for lots of great gtk+ apps to be ported to standalone OS X apps.
I'm certain the Inkscape developers will consider it many times over and over until there are enough resources (developers) to offer both options.
I certainly hope so!
Cheers, -n8
--
-- Nathaniel Gray -- Caltech Computer Science ------> -- Mojave Project -- http://mojave.cs.caltech.edu -->