Re: [Gaim-devel] What's the libgaim plan?

[Evan S. <ev...@dr...>]

On Oct 22, 2005, at 9:06 PM, Tim Ringenbach wrote:
 > So what exactly does Adium want to see w.r.t. a libgaim and  
packaging and all of that? Or do y'all even care that much?

Doesn't really matter as far as packaging goes to us... we're using  
libgaim in a manner unique to how most Linux projects would use it (I  
imagine) in that we must include every dependency in the binary.   
This is all handled in the XCode IDE, and I suspect we'll continue to  
use that regardless of how the package is distributed.

I'd love not to be maintaining a set of changes between Adium's  
libgaim and gaim CVS, though... I'll email more about that once I  
start the 2.0.0 move.

-Evan

<Tim's email didn't reply-to-all, so I'm quoting the rest of it below>

On Oct 22, 2005, at 9:06 PM, Tim Ringenbach wrote:

>> On Oct 22, 2005, at 4:48 PM, Mark Doliner wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I don't think we have much of a plan... but that hasn't stopped  
>>> us  yet!  Just
>>> because it's called "3.0.0" doesn't mean we have to wait until  
>>> 2007  to release it.
>>>
>
> Hm okay. Personally I'd perfer we kept the API/ABI stable for a  
> while. Although maybe that'll happen after 3.0.0.
>
>
>>> And as for the core/ui split, it's probably pretty close to  
>>> being  done.
>>> Someone just needs to sit down and separate the gtk and non-gtk   
>>> files and take
>>> care of all the ugly auto* stuff.  I've always pictured us   
>>> continuing to
>>> distribute binaries for the GTK+ version of Gaim, and possibly  
>>> just  add some
>>> extra "libgaim" packages or something (but I don't see a need to   
>>> create a
>>> libgaim.sourceforge.net, for example).
>>>
>
> Yeah. I wouldn't think we would need to create a seperate project.  
> Probably just a seperate package, unless we just staticly link  
> libgaim, in which case just a reorganization of the build tree.
>