If you think back to our last release a decision was made to hold back on inflating our GTK requirements until the 0.45 release. 0.45 time has come and we will now officially be requiring GTK 2.8+. Is this correct?
If I am not mistaken GTK 2.8 requires Cairo. This is good for us. I've been researching creating runtime checks for cairo's availability. If we agree on GTK 2.8, I won't have to worry about that. We may, however, want to consider runtime checks for the PDF backend. I've been looking into relaytool as a method for doing this on linux.
http://autopackage.org/apbuild-relaytool.php
I would appreciate assistance investigating this.
Aaron Spike
On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 04:59:13PM -0600, Aaron Spike wrote:
If you think back to our last release a decision was made to hold back on inflating our GTK requirements until the 0.45 release. 0.45 time has come and we will now officially be requiring GTK 2.8+. Is this correct?
Actually the compromise we had reached was for Gtk 2.6 for 0.45, and then 2.8 for 0.46, IIRC. The reasoning was that Gtk 2.8 is not available on OSX. If this has changed with OSX, then presumably all issues against moving to 2.8 now would be resolved.
If I am not mistaken GTK 2.8 requires Cairo. This is good for us. I've been researching creating runtime checks for cairo's availability. If we agree on GTK 2.8, I won't have to worry about that. We may, however, want to consider runtime checks for the PDF backend. I've been looking into relaytool as a method for doing this on linux.
Sounds good.
Bryce
Bryce Harrington wrote:
On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 04:59:13PM -0600, Aaron Spike wrote:
If you think back to our last release a decision was made to hold back on inflating our GTK requirements until the 0.45 release. 0.45 time has come and we will now officially be requiring GTK 2.8+. Is this correct?
Actually the compromise we had reached was for Gtk 2.6 for 0.45, and then 2.8 for 0.46, IIRC. The reasoning was that Gtk 2.8 is not available on OSX. If this has changed with OSX, then presumably all issues against moving to 2.8 now would be resolved.
Well. Then this is a very sad day for me.
:-)
Aaron Spike
On 12/7/06, Aaron Spike <aaron@...749...> wrote:
Bryce Harrington wrote:
Actually the compromise we had reached was for Gtk 2.6 for 0.45, and then 2.8 for 0.46, IIRC. The reasoning was that Gtk 2.8 is not available on OSX. If this has changed with OSX, then presumably all issues against moving to 2.8 now would be resolved.
Well. Then this is a very sad day for me.
:-)
Sorry if I'm making a point that was already debated in the past - I haven't been able to find the past arguments in the archive.
The current status of Fink is 2.4.9 (stable) and 2.6.10 (unstable). Darwinports now has 2.10.6
At what point do we decide we can't wait for Fink any longer? We should be able to produce a full DMG package using 2.8 or 2.10 from Darwinports (or even standalone) so Fink users won't miss out on being able to use Inkscape. But if they want to develop or compile it themselves then they'll need to use Darwinports, or satisfy the dependencies manually.
Or is this likely to annoy a lot of people?
Cheers Derek
On Thu, Dec 07, 2006 at 07:59:02AM +0800, Derek Hinchliffe wrote:
On 12/7/06, Aaron Spike <aaron@...749...> wrote:
Bryce Harrington wrote:
Actually the compromise we had reached was for Gtk 2.6 for 0.45, and then 2.8 for 0.46, IIRC. The reasoning was that Gtk 2.8 is not available on OSX. If this has changed with OSX, then presumably all issues against moving to 2.8 now would be resolved.
Well. Then this is a very sad day for me.
:-)
Sorry if I'm making a point that was already debated in the past - I haven't been able to find the past arguments in the archive.
The current status of Fink is 2.4.9 (stable) and 2.6.10 (unstable). Darwinports now has 2.10.6
At what point do we decide we can't wait for Fink any longer? We should be able to produce a full DMG package using 2.8 or 2.10 from Darwinports (or even standalone) so Fink users won't miss out on being able to use Inkscape. But if they want to develop or compile it themselves then they'll need to use Darwinports, or satisfy the dependencies manually.
Or is this likely to annoy a lot of people?
Well, it's been a few months since the issue came up, so I guess if it isn't fixed by now, one could wonder how long it could go on without a fix. In fact, it's equally likely that going forward despite the lack, could give those mantainers some motivation to bring those ports up to date. Or not.
Aaron, can you characterize the degree of pain that not having 2.8 as a dependency will pose?
Bryce
On 2006-December-07 , at 00:59 , Derek Hinchliffe wrote:
On 12/7/06, Aaron Spike <aaron@...749...> wrote:
Bryce Harrington wrote:
Actually the compromise we had reached was for Gtk 2.6 for 0.45, and then 2.8 for 0.46, IIRC. The reasoning was that Gtk 2.8 is not available on OSX. If this has changed with OSX, then presumably all issues against moving to 2.8 now would be resolved.
Well. Then this is a very sad day for me.
:-)
Sorry if I'm making a point that was already debated in the past - I haven't been able to find the past arguments in the archive.
The current status of Fink is 2.4.9 (stable) and 2.6.10 (unstable). Darwinports now has 2.10.6
At what point do we decide we can't wait for Fink any longer? We should be able to produce a full DMG package using 2.8 or 2.10 from Darwinports (or even standalone) so Fink users won't miss out on being able to use Inkscape. But if they want to develop or compile it themselves then they'll need to use Darwinports, or satisfy the dependencies manually.
Fink is not evolving very rapidly and, from what I gathered last time, this is related to the fact that many packages depend on GTK so upgrading things is a pain. There was no schedule for an upgrade other than the fact that it was likely to be "in a long time". DarwinPorts on the other hand: - contains almost always newer packages (this has probably to do with the fact that they propose fewer packages and in source form only, so there is less work to accomplish than on Fink's side. I don't blame Fink for anything, this is really a valuable project) - contains a loudmouth package hence allowing Inkboard (which Fink does not) - is (used to be?) the "official" way yo install gtk-native So, for Inkscape, both now and in the long run, DarwinPorts appears to be a better solution. Therefore, I tried it and got to the point where: - Inkscape SVN compiles and runs with DP, when installed as a standard Unix application. But it runs much slower than the application bundle we produce with Fink. Could this be related to the fact that the libraries are not stripped from debugging symbols in this case? - after some modifications of the bundling scripts which are Fink- centered in some ways, Inkscape runs from inside an app bundle but Pango seems to cause trouble and all fonts in the GUI are replaced by rectangles. I couldn't solve this problem and haven't contacted Michael Wybrow (the main author of all these scripts for Insckape) yet.
To sum up, I think we are at a point where compiling Inkscape with DarwinPorts (hence with GTK 2.10) is feasible. I did not have much time to investigate and the issue might be very easy to solve. I won't have time to investigate more in the future I am afraid (I am discovering a PhD does include some actual work...) so I'll be glad if someone could pop in. I started to modify the wiki page about compiling on OS X with DP-centric information. I'll try to add some more. I can sum up my changes to the bundling scripts to the one(s) who will replace me.
sorry I'm not able to do more. thanks in advance for any help.
JiHO --- http://jo.irisson.free.fr/
Bryce Harrington wrote
Actually the compromise we had reached was for Gtk 2.6 for 0.45, and then 2.8 for 0.46, IIRC. The reasoning was that Gtk 2.8 is not available on OSX. If this has changed with OSX, then presumably all issues against moving to 2.8 now would be resolved.
Nope, it was 2.6 for .44, and 2.8 for .45. We wanted 2.8 for .44, thus the compromise.
Heh. I keep track of things like this. :)
bob
On Thu, Dec 07, 2006 at 03:32:53AM -0600, Bob Jamison wrote:
Bryce Harrington wrote
Actually the compromise we had reached was for Gtk 2.6 for 0.45, and then 2.8 for 0.46, IIRC. The reasoning was that Gtk 2.8 is not available on OSX. If this has changed with OSX, then presumably all issues against moving to 2.8 now would be resolved.
Nope, it was 2.6 for .44, and 2.8 for .45. We wanted 2.8 for .44, thus the compromise.
Heh. I keep track of things like this. :)
Huh, okay, I must be misremembering. Thanks for the clarification. Aaron will no longer be sad. ;-)
Bryce
Aaron Spike wrote:
Bob Jamison wrote:
Nope, it was 2.6 for .44, and 2.8 for .45. We wanted 2.8 for .44, thus the compromise.
Can anyone produce evidence from the list archive to support their claims?
http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=20742303
On Thu, Dec 07, 2006 at 07:12:00AM -0600, Aaron Spike wrote:
Aaron Spike wrote:
Bob Jamison wrote:
Nope, it was 2.6 for .44, and 2.8 for .45. We wanted 2.8 for .44, thus the compromise.
Can anyone produce evidence from the list archive to support their claims?
http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=20742303
Ah, so I'm not totally crazy:
On Fri, 2006-07-07 at 11:15 -0700, Bryce Harrington wrote:
From the discussion, I gather that 2.6 *is* reasonably well supported on Mac. Thus, this suggests perhaps it would be wisest to do our 2.8 upgrade in two steps:
0.45 - Move our requirements to Gtk 2.6 Communicate our Gtk 2.8 ambitions to the Mac Gtk port maintainers. Encourage Inkscape Mac developers to experiment with 2.8 Around Sept, re-evaluate Gtk Mac 2.8 status
0.46 - Depending on evaluation, move to Gtk 2.8
Mental and Jon had affirmed this, however there doesn't appear to be a comment in the thread by Bob, so perhaps we've just gotten our wires crossed here, and are each remembering different things?
Bob, could you review the issues discussed in that thread and see what you think?
Despite what was agreed in that thread, we've given the issue another 5 months - which one would think *should* have been sufficient to get it fixed up. In the above, the expectation was that we'd have 0.45 out by last Sept and be moved onto gtk 2.8 by now.
Thus, I think we've given more than adequate wait time for Fink to upgrade to 2.8. Given that there is a new issue which necessitate going to gtk 2.8 now, I'd propose that we drop the previous agreement and move up the gtk version for this release.
Bryce
On Thu, 2006-12-07 at 09:15 -0800, Bryce Harrington wrote:
Thus, I think we've given more than adequate wait time for Fink to upgrade to 2.8. Given that there is a new issue which necessitate going to gtk 2.8 now, I'd propose that we drop the previous agreement and move up the gtk version for this release.
Does it matter that fink is still at 2.4(stable)/2.6(unstable)?
-mental
On 2006-December-09 , at 18:30 , MenTaLguY wrote:
On Thu, 2006-12-07 at 09:15 -0800, Bryce Harrington wrote:
Thus, I think we've given more than adequate wait time for Fink to upgrade to 2.8. Given that there is a new issue which necessitate going to gtk 2.8 now, I'd propose that we drop the previous agreement and move up the gtk version for this release.
Does it matter that fink is still at 2.4(stable)/2.6(unstable)?
not if we can sort things out with DarwinPorts. I just need some help on this from somebody who has more time than me right now (and is able to read shell scripts).
JiHO --- http://jo.irisson.free.fr/
jiho wrote:
not if we can sort things out with DarwinPorts.
This would be the "killer feature" for 0.45 if it could be arranged. If you do a blog search for "inkscape osx" you would see how important this is to the average, non-developer users.
OSX guys are in the same predicament as Win32 guys, in that all of the fixes that people need to make the experience similar to Linux are happening on the Gtk source head, not any previous releases. And Inkscape is likely one of the prime users of the latest version, too. It's not "bleeding edge" hubris, but necessity. Which is why Win32 has not been using the same Gtk installation environment as Gimp, although that would so so much simpler.
Getting the Darwin Ports stuff onto a user's Mac is probably harder than it is for Win32. But wouldn't it possible to have an alternative pre-canned installation with all of the dependent things as a payload?
Just asking, I have no idea. (I goofed on the Gtk version already this week! :-)
But it might help to take advantage of OSX's simpler (than Unix) installations.
bob
On Sat, 9 Dec 2006, MenTaLguY wrote:
On Thu, 2006-12-07 at 09:15 -0800, Bryce Harrington wrote:
Thus, I think we've given more than adequate wait time for Fink to upgrade to 2.8. Given that there is a new issue which necessitate going to gtk 2.8 now, I'd propose that we drop the previous agreement and move up the gtk version for this release.
Does it matter that fink is still at 2.4(stable)/2.6(unstable)?
It matters in as much as most of the Mac OSX Inkscape developers were using fink as it is the easiest and most non-intrusive way to install the required Inkscape dependencies on OSX.
I'm currently working on merging some of the features of the Immendio build script (mentioned before as an easy way to install native versions of GTK head and it's all its dependencies) and a similar build script that David Himelright contributed for building GTK 2.8+ and all its dependencies as a replacement for fink after the dicussion we had when switching to GTK 2.8 was initially proposed.
My plan here is for a script that will allow installation and updating of a fink like tree of all the Inkscape dependencies, as well as allowing this to be built as Universal versions which would be incredibly useful for creating offical Universal OSX releases.
I'm pretty busy this week, but I will try and get this script committed next weekend so that others can try it out and contribute to it.
My feeling is not to wait on fink any longer and just go ahead and update Inkscape to depend on GTK 2.8. The pool of people compiling Inkscape on OSX seems small enough that we can switch to a different method involving a custom script or via DarwinPorts if anyone wants to investigate that.
Cheers, Michael
On Mon, Dec 11, 2006 at 03:28:10PM +1100, Michael Wybrow wrote:
On Sat, 9 Dec 2006, MenTaLguY wrote:
On Thu, 2006-12-07 at 09:15 -0800, Bryce Harrington wrote:
Thus, I think we've given more than adequate wait time for Fink to upgrade to 2.8. Given that there is a new issue which necessitate going to gtk 2.8 now, I'd propose that we drop the previous agreement and move up the gtk version for this release.
My feeling is not to wait on fink any longer and just go ahead and update Inkscape to depend on GTK 2.8. The pool of people compiling Inkscape on OSX seems small enough that we can switch to a different method involving a custom script or via DarwinPorts if anyone wants to investigate that.
Sounds good, it looks like there is roughly a concensus favoring this approach, so we should go ahead with this plan.
Bryce
Bryce Harrington wrote:
On Mon, Dec 11, 2006 at 03:28:10PM +1100, Michael Wybrow wrote:
On Sat, 9 Dec 2006, MenTaLguY wrote:
On Thu, 2006-12-07 at 09:15 -0800, Bryce Harrington wrote:
Thus, I think we've given more than adequate wait time for Fink to upgrade to 2.8. Given that there is a new issue which necessitate going to gtk 2.8 now, I'd propose that we drop the previous agreement and move up the gtk version for this release.
My feeling is not to wait on fink any longer and just go ahead and update Inkscape to depend on GTK 2.8. The pool of people compiling Inkscape on OSX seems small enough that we can switch to a different method involving a custom script or via DarwinPorts if anyone wants to investigate that.
Sounds good, it looks like there is roughly a concensus favoring this approach, so we should go ahead with this plan.
I just checked RHN and it looks like the upcoming RHELv5 will include GTK2 version 2.10. So we shouldn't have to wait long for the enterprise distros.
Aaron Spike
On 2006-December-11 , at 21:03 , Bryce Harrington wrote:
On Mon, Dec 11, 2006 at 03:28:10PM +1100, Michael Wybrow wrote:
On Sat, 9 Dec 2006, MenTaLguY wrote:
On Thu, 2006-12-07 at 09:15 -0800, Bryce Harrington wrote:
Thus, I think we've given more than adequate wait time for Fink to upgrade to 2.8. Given that there is a new issue which necessitate going to gtk 2.8 now, I'd propose that we drop the previous agreement and move up the gtk version for this release.
My feeling is not to wait on fink any longer and just go ahead and update Inkscape to depend on GTK 2.8. The pool of people compiling Inkscape on OSX seems small enough that we can switch to a different method involving a custom script or via DarwinPorts if anyone wants to investigate that.
Sounds good, it looks like there is roughly a concensus favoring this approach, so we should go ahead with this plan.
Just to mention it, I think it would be better/more efficient to use DarwinPorts than to have a custom additional install for Inkscape. I am conscious that people will do what they like (and that is what is great with an open source project!) so let me explain my reasons and try to convince you. A custom install means: - additional disk space resources (this is not expensive but that is still something) - additional compilation time for Inkscape only (once in a while but still) - additional maintenance burden on Inkscape and Mac OS X Inkscape compilers side - some work that won't benefit any other project than Inkscape On the other hand, using DarwinPorts means: - that the maintenance work is done by the DP team, not Inskcape - every installed package could be used for other applications. I think it is very likely that Inkscape developers use other GTK applications present in DarwinPorts (eg. Gimp, Agave,...) so they will install GTK via DarwinPorts anyway. Therefore compilation time and disk resources won't be used for Inkscape only. - updates are easy
So I think thats using a custom install script to resolve Inkscape dependencies is much work to solve a problem for which elegant solutions already exist, unless we use a version of GTK that is not in DarwinPorts (which is not the case now and probably won't ever be because DarwinPorts is evolving quite rapidly), or unless the custom work ends in providing GTK in a reusable form (eg. as a .framework) which could benefit other projects (but is probably a bit out of Inkscape's scope). When we discussed this earlier, somebody (I think it was Jon Cruz) mentioned that not using Fink or DarwinPorts to resolve Inkscape dependencies would be just like ditching apt on a Debian box (or yum on a Fedora or...). This is something that you probably don't want to do unless you have very exotic needs (use svn versions of some packages, use specific compilation options etc.). Again, I won't refrain anybody from doing it but, as an occasional Inkscape compiler, I would prefer Inkscape to integrate with my existing DarwinPorts install than to have to compile and install all of GTK a second time.
JiHO --- http://jo.irisson.free.fr/
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006, jiho wrote:
Just to mention it, I think it would be better/more efficient to use DarwinPorts than to have a custom additional install for Inkscape. I am conscious that people will do what they like (and that is what is great with an open source project!) so let me explain my reasons and try to convince you.
You don't need to convince me on this point, I completely agree. :-)
So I think thats using a custom install script to resolve Inkscape dependencies is much work to solve a problem for which elegant solutions already exist, unless we use a version of GTK that is not in DarwinPorts.
The primary motivation for my work on a script for installing dependencies was to a create a easily reusable environment for compiling a Universal version of Inkscape and all its dependencies. This is needed so that the Universal binaries can be built by myself or someone else from one machine without needing to built PPC and Intel versions on different machines and lipo them together. Building libraries as Universal binaries is something that neither Fink nor DarwinPorts allow, or plan to (to my knowledge).
I'm completely comfortable with our "suggested" method of installing Inkscape's dependencies for developers on OSX be via DarwinPorts, though someone else will have to take charge of updating our instructions on the wiki as I don't use DarwinPorts and don't have the time to investigate it right at the moment.
Cheers, Michael
On Dec 13, 2006, at 3:20 PM, Michael Wybrow wrote:
I'm completely comfortable with our "suggested" method of installing Inkscape's dependencies for developers on OSX be via DarwinPorts, though someone else will have to take charge of updating our instructions on the wiki as I don't use DarwinPorts and don't have the time to investigate it right at the moment.
This would probably be very helpful.
If someone had updated instructions at some point, then I could try following them to get off of fink and thus ancient GTK versions.
:-)
On 2006-December-15 , at 07:20 , Jon A. Cruz wrote:
On Dec 13, 2006, at 3:20 PM, Michael Wybrow wrote:
I'm completely comfortable with our "suggested" method of installing Inkscape's dependencies for developers on OSX be via DarwinPorts, though someone else will have to take charge of updating our instructions on the wiki as I don't use DarwinPorts and don't have the time to investigate it right at the moment.
This would probably be very helpful.
If someone had updated instructions at some point, then I could try following them to get off of fink and thus ancient GTK versions.
:-)
I began adding some. I'll try to add some more when I get a chance to, but right now I still encounter issues that prevent the creation of an app bundle with DarwinPorts. I think I found something to investigate. I'll digg a bit there and report this on the wiki page.
cheers,
JiHO --- http://jo.irisson.free.fr/
jiho wrote:
On 2006-December-15 , at 07:20 , Jon A. Cruz wrote:
On Dec 13, 2006, at 3:20 PM, Michael Wybrow wrote:
I'm completely comfortable with our "suggested" method of installing Inkscape's dependencies for developers on OSX be via DarwinPorts, though someone else will have to take charge of updating our instructions on the wiki as I don't use DarwinPorts and don't have the time to investigate it right at the moment.
This would probably be very helpful.
If someone had updated instructions at some point, then I could try following them to get off of fink and thus ancient GTK versions.
:-)
I began adding some. I'll try to add some more when I get a chance to, but right now I still encounter issues that prevent the creation of an app bundle with DarwinPorts. I think I found something to investigate. I'll digg a bit there and report this on the wiki page.
Just for you to know, fink is currently updating to gtk 2.10.
On Sat, Dec 16, 2006 at 07:21:06AM +0100, Mich?le Garoche wrote:
jiho wrote:
On 2006-December-15 , at 07:20 , Jon A. Cruz wrote:
On Dec 13, 2006, at 3:20 PM, Michael Wybrow wrote:
I'm completely comfortable with our "suggested" method of installing Inkscape's dependencies for developers on OSX be via DarwinPorts, though someone else will have to take charge of updating our instructions on the wiki as I don't use DarwinPorts and don't have the time to investigate it right at the moment.
This would probably be very helpful.
If someone had updated instructions at some point, then I could try following them to get off of fink and thus ancient GTK versions.
I began adding some. I'll try to add some more when I get a chance to, but right now I still encounter issues that prevent the creation of an app bundle with DarwinPorts. I think I found something to investigate. I'll digg a bit there and report this on the wiki page.
Just for you to know, fink is currently updating to gtk 2.10.
Excellent news, thanks!
Bryce
Here is more incentive to start moving to native Gtk/OSX:
http://www.oreillynet.com/mac/blog/2006/12/illuminous_meet_gtk_1.html
Great news!
bob
jiho wrote:
On 2006-December-15 , at 07:20 , Jon A. Cruz wrote:
On Dec 13, 2006, at 3:20 PM, Michael Wybrow wrote:
I'm completely comfortable with our "suggested" method of installing Inkscape's dependencies for developers on OSX be via DarwinPorts, though someone else will have to take charge of updating our instructions on the wiki as I don't use DarwinPorts and don't have the time to investigate it right at the moment.
This would probably be very helpful.
If someone had updated instructions at some point, then I could try following them to get off of fink and thus ancient GTK versions.
:-)
I began adding some. I'll try to add some more when I get a chance to, but right now I still encounter issues that prevent the creation of an app bundle with DarwinPorts. I think I found something to investigate. I'll digg a bit there and report this on the wiki page.
cheers,
I guess I wrote too soon. The implication was that this would be bundled in OSX Leopard. Apparently that might not be true.
Bob Jamison wrote:
Here is more incentive to start moving to native Gtk/OSX:
http://www.oreillynet.com/mac/blog/2006/12/illuminous_meet_gtk_1.html
Great news!
bob
On Dec 17, 2006, at 7:32 PM, Bob Jamison wrote:
I guess I wrote too soon. The implication was that this would be bundled in OSX Leopard. Apparently that might not be true.
Yup. That got me at first too.
It was promoted as "GTK+ *in* Leopard"
Turns out it was just "oh, and by the way some third-party people have been working on OSX native GTK+"
Aaron Spike wrote:
Aaron Spike wrote:
Bob Jamison wrote:
Nope, it was 2.6 for .44, and 2.8 for .45. We wanted 2.8 for .44, thus the compromise.
Can anyone produce evidence from the list archive to support their claims?
http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=20742303
Oops. I stand corrected. :-)
bob
On Wed, 2006-12-06 at 16:59 -0600, Aaron Spike wrote:
If you think back to our last release a decision was made to hold back on inflating our GTK requirements until the 0.45 release. 0.45 time has come and we will now officially be requiring GTK 2.8+. Is this correct?
If I am not mistaken GTK 2.8 requires Cairo. This is good for us. I've been researching creating runtime checks for cairo's availability. If we agree on GTK 2.8, I won't have to worry about that. We may, however, want to consider runtime checks for the PDF backend. I've been looking into relaytool as a method for doing this on linux.
What version of Cairo is recommended? FC5 has 1.0.4, FC6 1.2.6, a snap shot 1.3.4 is available.
Tav
participants (10)
-
Aaron Spike -
Bob Jamison -
Bryce Harrington -
Derek Hinchliffe -
jiho -
Jon A. Cruz -
MenTaLguY -
Michael Wybrow -
Michèle Garoche -
Tavmjong Bah