[off topic only as much as the rest of this thread]
On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 02:57:11AM -0500, Freddie Unpenstein wrote:
> > Do the packagers read this list?
> > Do the maintainers read this list?
>
> I don't know. Do they? Do you know for a fact that none of them do? Do you
> know that none of
> > He shouldn't, but as a user of libglade who DID go and out figure
> > out how to use it (I do still have some "best libglade practices"
> > issues to figure out, though), I don't see why I can't back him up
> > in so far as what I see as a good point.
> Do the packagers read this list?
> Do th
On Wed, Feb 21, 2007 at 02:58:29AM -0500, Freddie Unpenstein wrote:
> > Surely we can agree that theres no point in asking the maintainers
> > of the tarball to please give better documentation and examples, if
> > you've never even looked at the tarball right ?
>
> He shouldn't, but as a user of
> > Especially since glade is pushing the use of libglade as THE
> > way to incorporate glade-produced layouts into applications,
> > libglade should be packaged so as to encourage just that. Not
> > make it hard for application developers to figure out how to use
> > it. In any case, this is more
On Mon, 2007-02-19 at 03:38 -0500, Freddie Unpenstein wrote:
> > what you MUST do, is download the tarball and see if the maintainer
> > included any helpfull files to help you understand how to use
> > the library, one of those helpfull files is test-libglade.c, a full
> > fledged example of all t
Time to dip my oar in the water...
On Sat, 2007-02-17 at 13:18 -0500, Gerald I. Evenden wrote:
> On Saturday 17 February 2007 12:16 pm, you wrote:
> > Gerald I. Evenden wrote on 02/17/2007 05:49 PM:
> > > On line 72 in module main there is a reference to function
> > > g_signal_connect. I cannot f
> what you MUST do, is download the tarball and see if the maintainer
> included any helpfull files to help you understand how to use
> the library, one of those helpfull files is test-libglade.c, a full
> fledged example of all the uses of libglade.
I haven't been following this thread all too c
Geraldi,
I take notice of the following comment. "I give up! I throw in the
towel". This is certainly your option, but I will tell you that your
experience with libglade is typical for persons who approach programming
the wrong way. Let me suggest an alternative that WILL yield different
and
On Sat, 2007-02-17 at 13:18 -0500, Gerald I. Evenden wrote:
> LOL
>
> I give up! I throw in the towel.
Sorry to hear that. I believe that you could have found GTK programming
very rewarding. Note that I did not say "libglade" because I think you
had difficulties because you focused on libglade
On Saturday 17 February 2007 12:38 pm, Michael Torrie wrote:
...
My comments about information access is addressed on another email.
> The example works just as it is supposed to. I get a pulsing progress
> bar which, on my GTK theme, is a small blue rectangle that moves back
> and forth
On Saturday 17 February 2007 12:16 pm, you wrote:
> Gerald I. Evenden wrote on 02/17/2007 05:49 PM:
> > On line 72 in module main there is a reference to function
> > g_signal_connect. I cannot find any reference to this entry in the index
>
> Have you tried typing "g_signal_connect site:developer.
On Sat, 2007-02-17 at 11:49 -0500, Gerald I. Evenden wrote:
> >From a gnome.org web page there are four example programs from which I will
> select example2 as an sample of incomplete/non-existant documentation. See
Having addressed your points below, I have to disagree that the
documentation is
Dear all,
I've learned how to use gtk by reading this documentation,
and other ressources found on the fly on the web; I've found
is extremely useful and well done, especially for a growing
project.
I am no C-guru, not even a computer scientist, and my
training is programming is twenty years o
On Friday 16 February 2007 11:17 pm, Michael Torrie wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-02-16 at 22:13 -0500, Gerald I. Evenden wrote:
> > I believe that much of the above and following issues are reasonably well
> > resolved but there are serious problems with the adequacy of some
> > sections (glib) but I will
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 08:15:13AM +0100, David Nečas (Yeti) wrote:
[...]
> Definitely, but I'd put only snippets and smaller examples
> to the manual itself. I hope we agree it makes no sense to
> put the source of gtk-demo-like programs to the manua
On Fri, 2007-02-16 at 22:13 -0500, Gerald I. Evenden wrote:
>
> I believe that much of the above and following issues are reasonably well
> resolved but there are serious problems with the adequacy of some sections
> (glib) but I will address these to a specific issue on a subsequent email
I'm
This is a side thread but I think some important issues are in question
On Thursday 15 February 2007 2:48 pm, Brian J. Tarricone wrote:
> Gerald I. Evenden wrote:
> > 2. A side thread suggested that in order to understand the usage of a
> > system like libglade one should study the source.
>
> I t
Quoting "Gerald I. Evenden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 3. Getting back to libglade. I have searched through many pages of google to
> find either a decent reference and/or tutorial for libglade. A couple of
> tutorials make halfway attempts but ultimately fail because they have no
> reference manu
Quoting Tristan Van Berkom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> The question here, is why dont users go and consult the tarball,
> if only to see if the maintainer included a Documentation directory
> (you'll find that one usefull in the linux kernel tarball for
> example), if only to read the README, if onl
Gerald I. Evenden wrote:
> 2. A side thread suggested that in order to understand the usage of a system
> like libglade one should study the source.
I think that's pretty standard practice where any open source
library/development system is concerned. Having full reference
documentation, tutori
I have made a major mistake here. Apparently google is indexing the old
libglade-1.0 stuff rather than the new stuff. The 2.0 docs are here:
http://developer.gnome.org/doc/API/2.0/libglade/index.html
Note that for any gnome-related library, you can find the api and
reference docs at:
http://de
On Thu, 2007-02-15 at 13:46 -0500, Gerald I. Evenden wrote:
> A the originator of this thread I will rephrase my problems and make a larger
> scale complaint.
>
> 1. My original complaint was compile/linking glade output. Thanks to M.
> Torrie this problem was nicely solved and I can compile/li
On Thu, 2007-02-15 at 13:46 -0500, Gerald I. Evenden wrote:
[...]
> I would love to be proved wrong about libglade documentation so please flame
> me if I am and point out my sins. Even though I am now able to compile/link
> libglade code I find that I am now stymied by lack of documentation on
A the originator of this thread I will rephrase my problems and make a larger
scale complaint.
1. My original complaint was compile/linking glade output. Thanks to M.
Torrie this problem was nicely solved and I can compile/link several examples
from various sources.
2. A side thread suggested
On Thu, 2007-02-15 at 05:55 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
> You took it back to the point. I think metaphors don't help much here.
> The question is whether usage examples belong to the documentation or
> not. As we see, this question is debatable. Personally, I'd side clearly
> with the "y
On Wed, 2007-02-14 at 14:44 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
> The users manual should be provided with every copy of a packaged
> distribution. The user's manual should provide sufficient instruction
> on how to operate libglade. If a developer finds himself needing to
> refer to the source
On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 05:55:36AM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 12:00:37AM +0100, David Nečas (Yeti) wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 02:44:21PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [...]
> > libglade developers do not produce any binary packages.
> >
> > Their product
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 12:00:37AM +0100, David Nečas (Yeti) wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 02:44:21PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
> libglade developers do not produce any binary packages.
>
> Their product does come with examples.
>
> Re
On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 02:44:21PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> The source code is available for those that need to modify libglade. It
> doesn't come with the packaged distribution. It is available from the
> same web site as libglade binary packages. A libglade extension writer
> needs
I just love this car analogy!
CARS
The technical service manual is available for those that need to service
the car. It doesn't come with the assembled car. Maybe it comes with
the car if you buy it in kit form. Your repair mechanic needs to refer
to it, but if the car's well-made, the user sho
On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 01:28:23PM -0800, Rick Jones wrote:
>
> Well, I didn't go tearing-down the engine and transmission in my car,
> but I still learned how to drive it :)
If your have no idea why the car does what it does when you
turn the steering wheel or change gear, I just hope you live
On Wed, 2007-02-14 at 13:28 -0800, Rick Jones wrote:
[...]
> > So you want to know how to use it and you intentionally
> > avoid one of the most efficient ways to learn it. Well, if
> > it works for you...
>
> Well, I didn't go tearing-down the engine and transmission in my car,
> but I still le
David Nečas (Yeti) wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 04:32:19PM -0800, Rick Jones wrote:
>
>>I'm not really interested
>>in how library call foo is implemented, I just want to know how to call
>>it do get my work done.
>
>
> So you want to know how to use it and you intentionally
> avoid one of
On Wed, 2007-02-14 at 12:56 -0300, Claudio Saavedra wrote:
> If at least the guy complaining would have given more information about the
> problems he had, we could have directed him in the right direction, which
> would've been much more productive than this "where do we put examples for the
> laz
On Wed, 2007-02-14 at 06:26 -0700, Jim George wrote:
> > So you want to know how to use it and you intentionally
> > avoid one of the most efficient ways to learn it. Well, if
> > it works for you...
>
> What is so inefficient about taking an example (that already exists)
> and including it in th
> So you want to know how to use it and you intentionally
> avoid one of the most efficient ways to learn it. Well, if
> it works for you...
What is so inefficient about taking an example (that already exists)
and including it in the HTML/online documentation that more people
read than source cod
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 04:32:19PM -0800, Rick Jones wrote:
> I'm not really interested
> in how library call foo is implemented, I just want to know how to call
> it do get my work done.
So you want to know how to use it and you intentionally
avoid one of the most efficient ways to learn it. W
David Nečas (Yeti) wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 02:03:29PM -0700, Michael Torrie wrote:
>
>>In any event, if a user wants to develop with
>>libglade, he'd need to install the rpms or debs or whatever. Most users
>>aren't going to be using the raw tarballs.
>
>
> Install it and use it are tw
On Tue, 2007-02-13 at 16:40 -0500, Tristan Van Berkom wrote:
> From that perspective, considering that we are speaking of a user
> base of developers that probably have experience dealing with
> third party software packages, I find it stunning that people dont
> just run an 'ls' in the package r
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 02:03:29PM -0700, Michael Torrie wrote:
>
> In any event, if a user wants to develop with
> libglade, he'd need to install the rpms or debs or whatever. Most users
> aren't going to be using the raw tarballs.
Install it and use it are two very different things.
Sure, one
On Tue, 2007-02-13 at 14:03 -0700, Michael Torrie wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-02-13 at 15:12 -0500, Tristan Van Berkom wrote:
> > Somehow I think that downloading the actual tarball from wherever the
> > website of a said software said to go download it from is much more
> > obvious a place then in a "-d
On Tue, 2007-02-13 at 15:12 -0500, Tristan Van Berkom wrote:
> Somehow I think that downloading the actual tarball from wherever the
> website of a said software said to go download it from is much more
> obvious a place then in a "-devel" package, that may or may not be
> available for whatever yo
On Tue, 2007-02-13 at 12:53 -0700, Michael Torrie wrote:
[...]
> One thing that might help here is to have a compiled executable that
> demonstrates libglade be installed as part of the normal compilation
> process. This would then be picked up by the packagers and installed as
> part of the -deve
On Tue, 2007-02-13 at 14:16 -0500, Tristan Van Berkom wrote:
> PS: This is not a personal thing, countless hordes have come in
> search of a libglade example without ever consulting the tarball,
> its just getting a little frustrating by now - but what can we do
> to improve the situation ?
I was
On Tue, 2007-02-13 at 10:28 -0700, Michael Torrie wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-02-13 at 09:47 -0500, Tristan Van Berkom wrote:
>
> > The testlibglade program that comes with libglade is about 100
> > lines of code + some helpfull comments about using the library
> > and about how the library works.
> >
On Tue, 2007-02-13 at 09:47 -0500, Tristan Van Berkom wrote:
> The testlibglade program that comes with libglade is about 100
> lines of code + some helpfull comments about using the library
> and about how the library works.
>
> I hope that this source file in the libglade tarball was easy
> to
On Sun, 2007-02-11 at 16:06 -0700, Michael Torrie wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-02-11 at 14:58 -0700, Michael Torrie wrote:
> > I've attached one that compiles thusly:
> >
> > gcc -o gladetest gladetest.c `pkg-config --cflags --libs gtk+-2.0
> > libglade-2.0`
>
> The attachment doesn't seem to have made
On Sun, 2007-02-11 at 14:58 -0700, Michael Torrie wrote:
> I've attached one that compiles thusly:
>
> gcc -o gladetest gladetest.c `pkg-config --cflags --libs gtk+-2.0
> libglade-2.0`
The attachment doesn't seem to have made it through the mailing list.
How about:
http://www.torriefamily.org/~
On Sun, 2007-02-11 at 11:55 -0500, Gerald I. Evenden wrote:
> I took a GLADE example and managed to get it to run under GLADE.
>
> It was suggest that I use libglade instead when generating a finalized
> program
> but still using the *.glade file generated by GLADE.
>
> But I am now to the poin
I took a GLADE example and managed to get it to run under GLADE.
It was suggest that I use libglade instead when generating a finalized program
but still using the *.glade file generated by GLADE.
But I am now to the point of giving up the whole problem because I cannot get
a libglade system to
50 matches
Mail list logo
