On Mon, May 02, 2011 at 01:59:33PM +0200, Kai Mosebach wrote:
> The question is if I could get a libspice-client-glib without gtk at all?
Ah, this should be doable, but you'd need to patch configure.ac and
gtk/Makefile.am for that, patches welcome :)
Christophe
pgplacMiE2Ta6.pgp
Description: PG
The question is if I could get a libspice-client-glib without gtk at all?
On 5/2/11 1:57 PM, "Christophe Fergeau" wrote:
>On Mon, May 02, 2011 at 01:48:27PM +0200, Kai Mosebach wrote:
>> This is basically a good approach I think - also to use the whole spice
>> client programmatically.
>> What I
On Mon, May 02, 2011 at 01:48:27PM +0200, Kai Mosebach wrote:
> This is basically a good approach I think - also to use the whole spice
> client programmatically.
> What I would like to see here would be a clean split between the
> spice-client-glib (w/o the gtk parts) and spicy(the gtk parts) if t
>>
>>Then I recommend that we create a library/framework/API so that
>> companies can use spice much easier programmatically.
>
>Spice-Gtk has a complete API. It allows to create complete clients
>without GTK using spice-client-glib.
This is basically a good approach I think - also to use the whol
This is great - thank you
On Apr 29, 2011, at 10:01 AM, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
> Hi,
>
> - Original Message -
>> There are a number of companies that interface to spicec
>> programmatically.
>>
>> These companies right now do a fork exec or whatever to run spicec
>> from within their
Hi,
- Original Message -
> There are a number of companies that interface to spicec
> programmatically.
>
> These companies right now do a fork exec or whatever to run spicec
> from within their software products.
> There are a number of reasons why they do not implement the spice
> proto
Good question...
Here are some recommendations --
There are a number of companies that interface to spicec programmatically.
These companies right now do a fork exec or whatever to run spicec from within
their software products.
There are a number of reasons why they do not implement the spice
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 07:22:12AM -0500, Cliff Sharp wrote:
> I never said that spice-gtk is bad for me.
> There are companies that need and use spicec.
Once again, why do they *need* it as opposed to "they need a spice client,
they don't really care if it's C, python, raw X, Qt, ..."
Saying thes
I never said that spice-gtk is bad for me.
There are companies that need and use spicec.
On Fri, 2011-04-29 at 14:06 +0200, Christophe Fergeau wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 07:49:14AM -0400, Cliff Sharp wrote:
> > There are companies that only use spicec that don't want to make changes
> > righ
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 07:49:14AM -0400, Cliff Sharp wrote:
> There are companies that only use spicec that don't want to make changes
> right now.
Not on OSX, do they? I'm really not understanding why using spice-gtk seems
to be so bad for you :(
Christophe
pgpByFrLpGmPB.pgp
Description: PGP
There are companies that only use spicec that don't want to make changes
right now.
On Fri, 2011-04-29 at 10:54 +0200, Christophe Fergeau wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 03:57:50PM -0500, Cliff Sharp wrote:
> > I have spice-gtk built and running on OSX. It has some issues but it does
> > connect
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 11:10:02AM +0200, Kai Mosebach wrote:
> The slim barebone one :) Without all the gtk overhead...
What overhead?
> I think if the audio-interface was more portable it would make a pretty
> good starting point for porting.
>
"it"? Something requiring X11 osx support isn't
The slim barebone one :) Without all the gtk overhead...
I think if the audio-interface was more portable it would make a pretty
good starting point for porting.
On 4/29/11 11:05 AM, "Christophe Fergeau" wrote:
>On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 10:56:11AM +0200, Kai Mosebach wrote:
>> I personally would
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 10:56:11AM +0200, Kai Mosebach wrote:
> I personally would also like to see spicec available for (Win,LX and OSX)
> since its a pure cmdline client w/o any additional GTK stuff (good for own
> development)...
spice-gtk is to be seen as a gtk widget which you can embed in an
I personally would also like to see spicec available for (Win,LX and OSX)
since its a pure cmdline client w/o any additional GTK stuff (good for own
development)...
On 4/29/11 10:54 AM, "Christophe Fergeau" wrote:
>On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 03:57:50PM -0500, Cliff Sharp wrote:
>> I have spice-gtk
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 03:57:50PM -0500, Cliff Sharp wrote:
> I have spice-gtk built and running on OSX. It has some issues but it does
> connect. I am in the process of testing this now.
>
> I am trying to build the spice cient spicec (spice-0.8.1) on OSX.
What's missing in spice-gtk that make
Do you have patches available for that?
From: Attila Sukosd
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 07:20:00 +0200
To: Cliff Sharp
Cc: Kai Mosebach ,
Subject: Re: [Spice-devel] spicec and spice-gtk
PortAudio
___
Spice-devel mailing list
Spice-devel
There is only an alsa implementation for the *nix side of spicec.
I've got a playback only implementation for PortAudio which is available
from OSX. I haven't tried it against the latest git though...
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 10:57 PM, Cliff Sharp wrote:
> I have spice-gtk built and running on
I have spice-gtk built and running on OSX. It has some issues but it does
connect. I am in the process of testing this now.
I am trying to build the spice cient spicec (spice-0.8.1) on OSX.
I am having major troubles with the alsa package.
It is not in MacPorts.
Does anyone know if there is a OSX
19 matches
Mail list logo
