> > Note, however, that it will also mean writing a lot of code that is > currently hidden behind those glade XML files.
OTOH moving to a WIP RAD tool is also not such a smart idea, maybe. But > that depends on the maturity of cambalanche. Make sense. So I would very strongly recommend using Cambalance --- and > to use the opportunity to clean up the GUIs ;-). > Yeah, I will explore Cambalance :) I think GNOME published a blog post for porting from GTK3 to GTK4 as > well. > Indeed, I have read it. So from the above discussion, I guess we should explore the Cambalance. BR Gotam On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 at 10:23, <gnunet-developers-requ...@gnu.org> wrote: > Send GNUnet-developers mailing list submissions to > gnunet-developers@gnu.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnunet-developers > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > gnunet-developers-requ...@gnu.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > gnunet-developers-ow...@gnu.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of GNUnet-developers digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. GSoC 2024: gnunet-gtk gtk4 upgrade (Gotam Gorabh) > 2. Re: GSoC 2024: gnunet-gtk gtk4 upgrade (Schanzenbach, Martin) > 3. Re: GSoC 2024: gnunet-gtk gtk4 upgrade (Christian Grothoff) > 4. Re: GSoC 2024: gnunet-gtk gtk4 upgrade (Jacki) > 5. GSoC 2024: gnunet-gtk gtk4 upgrade (Gotam Gorabh) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2024 00:49:20 +0530 > From: Gotam Gorabh <gautamy...@gmail.com> > To: gnunet-developers@gnu.org > Subject: GSoC 2024: gnunet-gtk gtk4 upgrade > Message-ID: > < > cah7azzz1ihpeksqxjn2wwwt-t1yokycbqtv94cqo8wgc5ut...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Hello Martin, > > Note that migration from gtk3 to gtk4 especially for gnunet-gtk is not > > trivial: We use libglade, which does not exist for gtk4. > > We will need to decide if we want to migrate to something like > > https://blogs.gnome.org/xjuan/2023/09/28/cambalache-0-16-0-released/ or > > something different entirely. > > > > Why can't we use the proper GObject concept like other gnome application > does? E.g. GNOME Settings, Nautilus, etc. which can handle the properties, > and signals in a structured way. > > Thanks. Regards > > Gotam Gorabh > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnunet-developers/attachments/20240228/1a62b873/attachment.htm > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2024 20:51:50 +0100 > From: "Schanzenbach, Martin" <schan...@gnunet.org> > To: gnunet-developers@gnu.org > Subject: Re: GSoC 2024: gnunet-gtk gtk4 upgrade > Message-ID: <f4f2ae09-4a76-48ab-8371-3f92dd663...@gnunet.org> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed > > I think our use of glade is historical. > It just made sense to somebody (not me, my guess is Christian). > > I personally have no issue with moving away from glade as RAD tool as I > find it very cumbersome myself. > Note, however, that it will also mean writing a lot of code that is > currently hidden behind those glade XML files. > > OTOH moving to a WIP RAD tool is also not such a smart idea, maybe. But > that depends on the maturity of cambalanche, which I cannot judge myself > right now as I have never tried it. > > BR > > On 27.02.24 20:19, Gotam Gorabh wrote: > > Hello Martin, > > > > Note that migration from gtk3 to gtk4 especially for gnunet-gtk is > not > > trivial: We use libglade, which does not exist for gtk4. > > We will need to decide if we want to migrate to something like > > https://blogs.gnome.org/xjuan/2023/09/28/cambalache-0-16-0-released/ > > < > https://blogs.gnome.org/xjuan/2023/09/28/cambalache-0-16-0-released/> or > > something different entirely. > > > > > > Why can't we use the proper GObject concept like other gnome application > > does? E.g. GNOME Settings, Nautilus, etc. which can handle the > > properties, and signals in a structured way. > > > > Thanks. Regards > > > > Gotam Gorabh > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2024 20:58:36 +0100 > From: Christian Grothoff <groth...@gnunet.org> > To: gnunet-developers@gnu.org > Subject: Re: GSoC 2024: gnunet-gtk gtk4 upgrade > Message-ID: <7c92b3da-bac5-4b34-8472-69b9fbeb5...@gnunet.org> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed > > Let me just say this: using a RAD tool like Glade is just the only > logical thing, it is 1000% more productive for UX development then doing > the building of Gtk objects by hand. So for the sake of sanity, please > use *some* RAD tool. Besides, AFAIK GtkBuilder isn't deprecated, just > Glade itself is being rewritten/replaced. We used Glade for quite a > while despite it being WIP/in beta, with GNOME's reluctance to declare > something stable I'm not sure a WIP RAD tool is inherently a bad idea. > But I *am* sure that doing gtk_box_add() by hand is the road to > insanity. So I would very strongly recommend using Cambalance --- and > to use the opportunity to clean up the GUIs ;-). > > On 2/27/24 20:51, Schanzenbach, Martin wrote: > > I think our use of glade is historical. > > It just made sense to somebody (not me, my guess is Christian). > > > > I personally have no issue with moving away from glade as RAD tool as I > > find it very cumbersome myself. > > Note, however, that it will also mean writing a lot of code that is > > currently hidden behind those glade XML files. > > > > OTOH moving to a WIP RAD tool is also not such a smart idea, maybe. But > > that depends on the maturity of cambalanche, which I cannot judge myself > > right now as I have never tried it. > > > > BR > > > > On 27.02.24 20:19, Gotam Gorabh wrote: > >> Hello Martin, > >> > >> Note that migration from gtk3 to gtk4 especially for gnunet-gtk is > >> not > >> trivial: We use libglade, which does not exist for gtk4. > >> We will need to decide if we want to migrate to something like > >> > https://blogs.gnome.org/xjuan/2023/09/28/cambalache-0-16-0-released/ > >> > >> <https://blogs.gnome.org/xjuan/2023/09/28/cambalache-0-16-0-released/ > > or > >> something different entirely. > >> > >> > >> Why can't we use the proper GObject concept like other gnome > >> application does? E.g. GNOME Settings, Nautilus, etc. which can > >> handle the properties, and signals in a structured way. > >> > >> Thanks. Regards > >> > >> Gotam Gorabh > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2024 01:20:16 +0100 > From: Jacki <ja...@thejackimonster.de> > To: gnunet-developers@gnu.org > Subject: Re: GSoC 2024: gnunet-gtk gtk4 upgrade > Message-ID: > <edad1b98ab349d08166335312b03f6c5737b69fb.ca...@thejackimonster.de > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Exactly. In GTK3 you can still use Glade but import the UI files via > GtkBuilder. In GTK4 they adjusted widgets quite a bit. So instead of > Glade you need to use Cambalache because Glade won't be ported over. In > fact Cambalache is developed by one of the core contributors behind > Glade. > > Since Camabalache is still in development we could port over to GTK3 > using GtkBuilder with designing UI in Glade though. The required > changes from GTK3 to GTK4 shouldn't be huge in most cases. Cambalache > also supports converting the UI files from GTK3 to GTK4. > > I think GNOME published a blog post for porting from GTK3 to GTK4 as > well. > > But I assume it's also possible to use Cambalache already. Most > important functionality should work. > > BR > Jacki > > On Tue, 2024-02-27 at 20:58 +0100, Christian Grothoff wrote: > > Let me just say this: using a RAD tool like Glade is just the only > > logical thing, it is 1000% more productive for UX development then > > doing > > the building of Gtk objects by hand. So for the sake of sanity, > > please > > use *some* RAD tool. Besides, AFAIK GtkBuilder isn't deprecated, just > > Glade itself is being rewritten/replaced. We used Glade for quite a > > while despite it being WIP/in beta, with GNOME's reluctance to > > declare > > something stable I'm not sure a WIP RAD tool is inherently a bad > > idea. > > But I *am* sure that doing gtk_box_add() by hand is the road to > > insanity. So I would very strongly recommend using Cambalance --- > > and > > to use the opportunity to clean up the GUIs ;-). > > > > On 2/27/24 20:51, Schanzenbach, Martin wrote: > > > I think our use of glade is historical. > > > It just made sense to somebody (not me, my guess is Christian). > > > > > > I personally have no issue with moving away from glade as RAD tool > > > as I > > > find it very cumbersome myself. > > > Note, however, that it will also mean writing a lot of code that is > > > currently hidden behind those glade XML files. > > > > > > OTOH moving to a WIP RAD tool is also not such a smart idea, maybe. > > > But > > > that depends on the maturity of cambalanche, which I cannot judge > > > myself > > > right now as I have never tried it. > > > > > > BR > > > > > > On 27.02.24 20:19, Gotam Gorabh wrote: > > > > Hello Martin, > > > > > > > > Note that migration from gtk3 to gtk4 especially for gnunet- > > > > gtk is > > > > not > > > > trivial: We use libglade, which does not exist for gtk4. > > > > We will need to decide if we want to migrate to something > > > > like > > > > > > > > https://blogs.gnome.org/xjuan/2023/09/28/cambalache-0-16-0-released/ > > > > > > > > < > > > > https://blogs.gnome.org/xjuan/2023/09/28/cambalache-0-16-0-release > > > > d/> or > > > > something different entirely. > > > > > > > > > > > > Why can't we use the proper GObject concept like other gnome > > > > application does? E.g. GNOME Settings, Nautilus, etc. which can > > > > handle the properties, and signals in a structured way. > > > > > > > > Thanks. Regards > > > > > > > > Gotam Gorabh > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- > A non-text attachment was scrubbed... > Name: signature.asc > Type: application/pgp-signature > Size: 870 bytes > Desc: This is a digitally signed message part > URL: < > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnunet-developers/attachments/20240228/4bd86ab3/attachment.sig > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2024 10:22:32 +0530 > From: Gotam Gorabh <gautamy...@gmail.com> > To: gnunet-developers@gnu.org > Subject: GSoC 2024: gnunet-gtk gtk4 upgrade > Message-ID: > < > cah7azzyzbrskyazwjqgsc84gal2hus-hgxajnvjr_kp8xpe...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Hey, > > I built and installed *gnunet* and *gnunet-gtk *successfully but while > testing the changes by compiling and running the binary file of gnunet-gtk > (e.g. Runing ./src/fs/gnunet-fs-gtk). It gives following error. > However, the Installed binary is running successfully. > > WARNING `stat' failed on file > > `/home/firefly/gnunet-gtk/src/share/gnunet/config.d' at disk.c:836 with > > error: No such file or directory > > ERROR Failed to load > > > `/home/firefly/gnunet-gtk/src/share/gnunet/gnunet_fs_gtk_main_window.glade': > > Failed to open file > > > “/home/firefly/gnunet-gtk/src/share/gnunet/gnunet_fs_gtk_main_window.glade”: > > No such file or directory > > > > Should I pass any further arguments to the command line while running > binary or something else? > > Thanks & regards > > Gotam Gorabh > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: < > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnunet-developers/attachments/20240228/11a16260/attachment.htm > > > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > GNUnet-developers mailing list > GNUnet-developers@gnu.org > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnunet-developers > > > ------------------------------ > > End of GNUnet-developers Digest, Vol 224, Issue 11 > ************************************************** >
