On N, 2007-11-22 at 09:44 -0500, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-11-22 at 15:15 +0100, Alexander Larsson wrote:
> >
> > I'm not sure its expected in the future. Apparently there is some
> > confusion from the different version numbers of current glib/gtk+ which
> > is why there is a desire t
On Thu, 2007-11-22 at 15:15 +0100, Alexander Larsson wrote:
>
> I'm not sure its expected in the future. Apparently there is some
> confusion from the different version numbers of current glib/gtk+ which
> is why there is a desire to resync the numbers.
I think it's safe to say that Gtk+ has sett
On Thu, 2007-11-22 at 09:11 -0500, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-11-22 at 03:13 -0500, Alexander Larsson wrote:
> > On Wed, 2007-11-21 at 20:02 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote:
> >
> > > Great news!
> > >
> > > I now remember that Tim wanted to release glib and gtk+ in sync with a
> > > 2.16.0
On Thu, 2007-11-22 at 03:13 -0500, Alexander Larsson wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-11-21 at 20:02 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote:
>
> > Great news!
> >
> > I now remember that Tim wanted to release glib and gtk+ in sync with a
> > 2.16.0 release number. Does that also mean that the plan is to have a
> > new
On Wed, 2007-11-21 at 20:02 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote:
> Great news!
>
> I now remember that Tim wanted to release glib and gtk+ in sync with a
> 2.16.0 release number. Does that also mean that the plan is to have a
> new gtk+ release for GNOME 2.22?
A more likely result is that they will have
Le mercredi 21 novembre 2007, à 11:57 -0500, Matthias Clasen a écrit :
> At the gtk team irc meeting yesterday, there was a broad consensus
> that the merge plan as laid out earlier by Alex on this list (ie
> merging gio into the glib vcs and tarball, but keep it in a separate
> shared library) mak
At the gtk team irc meeting yesterday, there was a broad consensus
that the merge plan as laid out earlier by Alex on this list (ie
merging gio into the glib vcs and tarball, but keep it in a separate
shared library) makes sense and that we should proceed with this as
soon as gio is "ready".
Yeste
On Wed, 2007-11-14 at 16:44 -0500, John Ehresman wrote:
> Hi,
>
> A few dbus integration questions from an application developer who is
> somewhat familiar with gtk internals and the win32 port.
>
> * Would gtk be usable on posix-like platforms that do not have dbus
> installed and configured?
Hi,
A few dbus integration questions from an application developer who is
somewhat familiar with gtk internals and the win32 port.
* Would gtk be usable on posix-like platforms that do not have dbus
installed and configured? Does OS X fall into this category?
* What happens when something is
On Wed, 2007-11-14 at 16:32 +, Alp Toker wrote:
> Alexander Larsson wrote:
> > This seem like a totally backwards implementation. You're enforcing a
> > weird non-native dependency on dbus for windows. A better approach would
> > be to have a platform independent api for notification (possibly
Alexander Larsson wrote:
> This seem like a totally backwards implementation. You're enforcing a
> weird non-native dependency on dbus for windows. A better approach would
> be to have a platform independent api for notification (possibly in
> Gtk). This api would then have a unix implementation, a
On Wed, 2007-11-14 at 14:56 +, Alp Toker wrote:
> No issues with GIO being in GLib. I'm looking forward to working with
> GIO and gvfs.
>
> > So, I assume you're talking about the dbus/glib mainloop integration
> > library havoc mentioned. (Because if you think gvfs should use some shim
> > t
No issues with GIO being in GLib. I'm looking forward to working with
GIO and gvfs.
> So, I assume you're talking about the dbus/glib mainloop integration
> library havoc mentioned. (Because if you think gvfs should use some shim
> to allow you to replace the dbus implementation you're out of you
On Wed, 2007-11-14 at 11:39 +, Alp Toker wrote:
> Alex, this topic seems to become popular again every few weeks, and will
> probably keep doing so until work is started on some kind of real
> libgdesktop module.
>
> GTK+ is used by applications and platforms that don't support libdbus
>
Alp Toker wrote:
> Alexander Larsson wrote:
>> On Wed, 2007-11-07 at 16:18 -0500, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2007-11-07 at 16:07 -0500, Alexander Larsson wrote:
glib would need dbus as a build requirement for this to work (needs the
dbus types), and the glib header for the functio
Alexander Larsson wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-11-07 at 16:18 -0500, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
>> On Wed, 2007-11-07 at 16:07 -0500, Alexander Larsson wrote:
>>> glib would need dbus as a build requirement for this to work (needs the
>>> dbus types), and the glib header for the function would have to be
>>>
On Fri, 2007-11-09 at 14:43 -0500, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
> > There is a slight problem with ldconfig. It goes throught the
> > $prefix/lib directory and "fixes" up all symlinks based on the actual
> > soname in the files. This means it will change the libglib.so.0 symlink
> > to point to libglib
On Thu, 2007-11-08 at 18:45 +0100, Alexander Larsson wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-11-07 at 16:31 -0500, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
> > On Wed, 2007-11-07 at 21:46 +0100, Alexander Larsson wrote:
> > >
> > > This leads me to belive it should be possible to create a configure
> > > option for glib such that li
On Wed, 2007-11-07 at 16:31 -0500, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-11-07 at 21:46 +0100, Alexander Larsson wrote:
> >
> > This leads me to belive it should be possible to create a configure
> > option for glib such that libglib, libgmodule, libgobject are in the
> > same libglib.so file, and
On Wed, 2007-11-07 at 22:30 +0100, Alexander Larsson wrote:
>
>
> It will mean that applications linking to libglib will suddenly pull in
> more dependencies however. Thats not something that really happens with
> e.g. gobject, and for gmodule the extra library is from glibc.
>
> For instance, i
On Wed, 2007-11-07 at 21:46 +0100, Alexander Larsson wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-11-07 at 13:32 -0500, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
> > On Wed, 2007-11-07 at 11:06 -0500, Ryan Lortie wrote:
> > >
> > > One library, one .so file, one pkg-config file.
> >
> > I'd say do a hybrid: separate pkg-config files, si
On Wed, 2007-11-07 at 16:18 -0500, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-11-07 at 16:07 -0500, Alexander Larsson wrote:
> >
> > glib would need dbus as a build requirement for this to work (needs the
> > dbus types), and the glib header for the function would have to be
> > separate (with a separa
On Wed, 2007-11-07 at 16:07 -0500, Alexander Larsson wrote:
>
> glib would need dbus as a build requirement for this to work (needs the
> dbus types), and the glib header for the function would have to be
> separate (with a separate .pc file for it) so that it can include
> dbus.h, but it would wo
On Wed, 2007-11-07 at 14:55 -0500, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> I think GIO/gvfs are the same, right, where GIO is just interfaces, and
> gvfs provides an implementation? Apps would not link to gvfs directly?
Its kinda similar. libgio does have an implementation for local files
only, so you can use
On Wed, 2007-11-07 at 13:32 -0500, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-11-07 at 11:06 -0500, Ryan Lortie wrote:
> >
> > One library, one .so file, one pkg-config file.
>
> I'd say do a hybrid: separate pkg-config files, single .so. You can
> even create .so symlinks, making it a build-time op
Hi,
It may not be clear to everyone on the list the structure of GIO and
GSettings; we had a discussion with Ryan about it on Monday. (I am not
100% sure GIO works the same as GSettings, so I'll talk about GSettings.)
Applications use GSettings, which includes an interface for storing
preferen
Matthew Barnes wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-11-07 at 16:35 +0100, Alexander Larsson wrote:
>> The idea is that this library would contain non-ui stuff that
>> applications want but that requires GObject, so they can't be in glib.
>> Various names for this library has been thrown about:
>> gfoundation, gb
On Wed, 2007-11-07 at 16:35 +0100, Alexander Larsson wrote:
> The idea is that this library would contain non-ui stuff that
> applications want but that requires GObject, so they can't be in glib.
> Various names for this library has been thrown about:
> gfoundation, gbase, gplatform
> Can you th
On Wed, 2007-11-07 at 11:06 -0500, Ryan Lortie wrote:
>
> One library, one .so file, one pkg-config file.
I'd say do a hybrid: separate pkg-config files, single .so. You can
even create .so symlinks, making it a build-time option to include a
"feature" in the gwhatever.so or build a separate .s
On Wed, 2007-11-07 at 17:17 +0100, Alexander Larsson wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-11-07 at 17:07 +0100, Xavier Bestel wrote:
> > > Can you think of a good name for the new unified library?
> >
> > Stick it in glib. But if you really want to split, please avoid "base"
> > or "foundation" or "the-mother-o
On Wed, 2007-11-07 at 11:06 -0500, Ryan Lortie wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-11-07 at 17:45 +0200, Xan wrote:
> > On Nov 7, 2007 5:35 PM, Alexander Larsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > The idea is that this library would contain non-ui stuff that
> > > applications want but that requires GObject, so th
On Wed, 2007-11-07 at 16:35 +0100, Alexander Larsson wrote:
> What do people think about these ideas? Does it make sense?
Either people bitch because glib is too big, or they cry because gtk+
has too many dependencies. I prefer less deps => less pain at build-
time, less packages in distros, less
On Wed, 2007-11-07 at 17:45 +0200, Xan wrote:
> On Nov 7, 2007 5:35 PM, Alexander Larsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The idea is that this library would contain non-ui stuff that
> > applications want but that requires GObject, so they can't be in glib.
> > Various names for this library has b
On Wed, 2007-11-07 at 17:45 +0200, Xan wrote:
> On Nov 7, 2007 5:35 PM, Alexander Larsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The idea is that this library would contain non-ui stuff that
> > applications want but that requires GObject, so they can't be in glib.
> > Various names for this library has be
I talked a bit with Ryan and Matthias on irc about the possible plans
for merging gio into the glib module today.
The original plan was to merge gio into glib as a separate library that
links to libgobject, then use that from gtk+. The idea behind this is
that by shipping it as part of glib we ma
On Nov 7, 2007 5:35 PM, Alexander Larsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The idea is that this library would contain non-ui stuff that
> applications want but that requires GObject, so they can't be in glib.
> Various names for this library has been thrown about:
> gfoundation, gbase, gplatform
Wou
On Wed, 2007-11-07 at 17:07 +0100, Xavier Bestel wrote:
> > Can you think of a good name for the new unified library?
>
> Stick it in glib. But if you really want to split, please avoid "base"
> or "foundation" or "the-mother-of-everything", everyone wants its
> project to be called like that.
37 matches
Mail list logo
