On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 4:51 PM, Jasper St. Pierre <jstpie...@mecheye.net> wrote:
> Would it be possible for me to fund / help maintain official GNOME > Win32 bundles and an SDK? I'd love to improve Windows support of GTK+, > but I'm never sure where the status is. Last time I tried jhbuild it > failed on something early on -- I believe fontconfig, so that was a > bummer. > Well the current status is quite good compared with how it was a few years ago. The main problems are still: 1. that we have lots of downstream patches still on msys2, even though I spent quite a lot of time pushing them upstream. 2. building anything out of git is a nightmare, you need a tarball or everything gets in your way 3. gobject-introspection could get quite a bit of love for windows. There are though some patches in bugzilla that are waiting some review. 4. jhbuild would require some serious work. Cheers. > > On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 9:15 AM, Emmanuele Bassi <eba...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi; > > > > On 11 June 2015 at 13:44, anatoly techtonik <techto...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 9:22 PM, Emmanuele Bassi <eba...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>> > >>> The current stance of everyone involved in the Windows backend for > >>> GLib and GTK+ is to stop advertising binary builds for Windows — as we > >>> don't do that for any other platform, and nobody sticks around long > >>> enough to keep doing that or to set up a continuous integration build > >>> for GTK. > >> > >> Stop advertising == stop supporting? > > > > If I wanted to say "stop supporting", I would have said that. Not that > > we *ever* "supported" binary builds, on any platform. If you want > > commercial support, you should contract somebody. > > > > Currently, we advertise ad hoc Windows builds on gtk.org; those are > > out of date, and lack many of the bug fixes that went into GTK. This > > situation is confusing for application developers, and makes the > > project look bad. It also reflect badly on the great work that > > developers have been doing in order to make GTK work well on Windows. > > > > On top of that, we don't offer binary builds for any other platform, > > and instead rely on distributors — like Homebrew on Mac; the *BSD > > ports; or the various Linux distributions — to provide binary builds > > for them. Windows is an anomaly, mostly because there weren't > > good/usable software distributions in the past. This has now changed, > > and it's a good thing to ensure that developers on Windows get > > reliable, up to date software. > > > >>> Developers using the G* core platform libraries on Windows are > >>> strongly encouraged to use the MSYS2 distribution: > >>> > >>> https://msys2.github.io/ > >> > >> Like Git? Ship 200Mb of "additional value" on top? Just for comparison > >> Mercurial installation is 37Mb compared with 267Mb of Git. And that for > >> every GTK application? > > > > MSYS2 is for developers, not for end users. > > > > You're supposed to set up the development enviroment on *your* > > development machine(s); once you have built your application, you can > > take your binary artefacts, including the DLLs you depend on, put them > > into an installer, and let your users download the installer — which > > is exactly what you should have done in the past, even with pre-built > > DLLs. The intended change is for application developers to get > > pre-built, up to date binaries using MSYS2, instead of downloading zip > > files from gtk.org that we cannot reliably keep up to date. > > > > Telling your users to download your application; download DLLs from > > gtk.org; shove them into some directory; and, finally, hope for the > > best, was never a good software distribution mechanism. > > > >>> This will provide you with pre-built packages that are known to work > >>> and maintained. It also allows you to build your own packages on top > >>> of it, and create an installer from the result. > >> > >> Can GTK be cross-compiled for Windows? > > > > Yes, it can, and it routinely is. > > > >>> What the GTK team would love, on the other hand, is somebody putting > >>> the effort in setting up and maintaining a continuous integration > >>> service — similar to https://build.gnome.org — for Windows builds. > >>> This way we would be able to catch build regressions after every > >>> commit, without relying on the application developers to file bugs. > >> > >> http://www.appveyor.com/ if using closed source service is okay. > > > > No, it's really not — especially if it has to run on the gnome.org > > infrastructure. > > > > Ciao, > > Emmanuele. > > > > -- > > https://www.bassi.io > > [@] ebassi [@gmail.com] > > _______________________________________________ > > gtk-devel-list mailing list > > gtk-devel-l...@gnome.org > > https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list > > > > -- > Jasper > _______________________________________________ > gtk-list mailing list > gtk-list@gnome.org > https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-list > -- Ignacio Casal Quinteiro
_______________________________________________ gtk-list mailing list gtk-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-list
