On Sun, 2006-10-22 at 12:18 -0700, Ted Gould wrote:
On Thu, 2006-10-19 at 22:49 +1000, Void wrote:
> This is a courtesy email to let you guys know what
> has happened with "Inkscape Lite". Awhile back I
> received some help from this mail-list, to choose
> an appropriate version of Inkscape for use in
> Puppy Linux.
Great. I'm glad you were able to find an Inkscape that'll work. But,
it'd be nice if we can figure out how to use a more current version.
> The binary tarball for InkscapeLite is to be
> found at Ibiblio:
> The source tarball is at: http://puptrix.org/sources/
Should we put this in to a SVN branch? What are people thinking about
Yes, we should most definitely do this...hopefully in the future when we
have things more lib'ized, we could connect up our more current core to
a much lighter interface for things like puppy linux, pdas, etc.
> We also have binary tarballs for the full Inkscape, v0.43 and it
> interesting to compare
> Binary pkg Executable share/inkscape
> v0.43 shared gtkmm 3807K 1932K
> v0.43 static gtkmm 5619K 1932K
> v0.36.2 "InkLite" 1042K 928K
> Of course, the executables are all stripped.
This is a bit surprising to me. What do other people think? It seems
that when Bryce was doing his status reports the number of LOC was
reducing over time, or atleast not moving towards 4x the number. I
realize that 0.43 includes things like Potrace... but almost 4x?
Yah, that is weird...I would like to see InkscapeLite in our tree and
think it would be great to work with you all to make releases of this
and get it out in the hands of people on a regular basis...
This also has a lot of uses for kids, etc...
San Francisco, CA
USA PH 510.499.0894
MSN, AIM, Yahoo Chat: kidproto
Jabber Chat: rejon@...896...