From: Tim R. <tim...@co...> - 2005-10-22 17:58:34
Attachments:
libgaim.diff
|
What's the libgaim plan? Is there anyone in charge of it? When will we finish the core/ui split? After 2.0.0 (which means at least 3.0.0)? I get the impression most developers are like me and only have a vague idea what's going on with this. I assume there's adium people on this list who'll give me their side of it. For refernce, I generated a patch by coping adium's libgaim over a freshly checked out 1.5.0, and did a cvs diff -dup. It's missing any files they added, but I didn't see any that looked too relavant. --Tim |
From: Mark D. <ma...@ki...> - 2005-10-22 20:48:54
|
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 12:57:36 -0500, Tim Ringenbach wrote > What's the libgaim plan? Is there anyone in charge of it? When will > we finish the core/ui split? After 2.0.0 (which means at least 3.0.0) > ? I get the impression most developers are like me and only have a > vague idea what's going on with this. I assume there's adium people > on this list who'll give me their side of it. > > For refernce, I generated a patch by coping adium's libgaim over a > freshly checked out 1.5.0, and did a cvs diff -dup. It's missing any > files they added, but I didn't see any that looked too relavant. > > --Tim 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. I'd like to see 3.0.0 in March or April of next year with rewritten privacy, fully core/ui split, and gaim-vv merged in. I spose it's also possible some of that will happen for 2.0.0. 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). -Mark |
From: Evan S. <ev...@dr...> - 2005-10-22 21:08:36
|
Sometime in the next 2 weeks I'm hopefully going to branch adium's libgaim repo and merge in gaim 2.0.0cvs; Adium 1.0 is going to block on a gaim 2.0.0 release, and I'll therefore be bringing 1.0svn up to what we've got so far. Hopefully this will encourage increased patch writing from other Adium folks (certainly from me). As I get gaim 2 working with libgaim, I'll submit patches and/or ping the list for various issues faced/dealt with in libgaim -- in several cases (as can be seen in some hackier parts of Tim's diff), we're just doing what Works without doing something that would ever be mergable into the trunk at this time, and that should change. The biggest set of changes which need to be addressed.. and I haven't looked at the new 2.0 status stuff to see if they already are.. is that each prpl's code in libgaim is currently hacked to send out a buddy-status-message-changed (or something like that) signal when a status message changes [without the away state necessarily changing]. For example, an away AIM contact changes her away message -- libgaim sends out a signal. Does such a signal already exist in 2.0? -Evan On Oct 22, 2005, at 4:48 PM, Mark Doliner wrote: > On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 12:57:36 -0500, Tim Ringenbach wrote > >> What's the libgaim plan? Is there anyone in charge of it? When will >> we finish the core/ui split? After 2.0.0 (which means at least 3.0.0) >> ? I get the impression most developers are like me and only have a >> vague idea what's going on with this. I assume there's adium people >> on this list who'll give me their side of it. >> >> For refernce, I generated a patch by coping adium's libgaim over a >> freshly checked out 1.5.0, and did a cvs diff -dup. It's missing any >> files they added, but I didn't see any that looked too relavant. >> >> --Tim >> > > 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. > > I'd like to see 3.0.0 in March or April of next year with rewritten > privacy, > fully core/ui split, and gaim-vv merged in. I spose it's also > possible some > of that will happen for 2.0.0. > > 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). > > -Mark > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by the JBoss Inc. > Get Certified Today * Register for a JBoss Training Course > Free Certification Exam for All Training Attendees Through End of 2005 > Visit http://www.jboss.com/services/certification for more information > _______________________________________________ > Gaim-devel mailing list > Gai...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gaim-devel > > |
From: Evan S. <ev...@dr...> - 2005-10-23 03:44:26
|
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. > |
From: Colin B. <ti...@la...> - 2005-10-28 17:18:34
|
On Oct 22, 2005, at 5:08 PM, Evan Schoenberg wrote: > Sometime in the next 2 weeks I'm hopefully going to branch adium's > libgaim repo and merge in gaim 2.0.0cvs; Adium 1.0 is going to > block on a gaim 2.0.0 release, and I'll therefore be bringing > 1.0svn up to what we've got so far. Hopefully this will encourage > increased patch writing from other Adium folks (certainly from me). > I've been working with the dbus and guifications folks on getting some of these neat things working on OS X. I'd be happy to write patches for libgaim as I'm fairly familiar with how things work in a glib based environment. Is 2.0.0 blocking on the GObjectification work that was being done? Or is that being pushed back. -Colin |
From: Mark D. <ma...@ki...> - 2005-10-28 22:15:14
|
On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 13:18:20 -0400, Colin Barrett wrote > On Oct 22, 2005, at 5:08 PM, Evan Schoenberg wrote: > > > Sometime in the next 2 weeks I'm hopefully going to branch adium's > > libgaim repo and merge in gaim 2.0.0cvs; Adium 1.0 is going to > > block on a gaim 2.0.0 release, and I'll therefore be bringing > > 1.0svn up to what we've got so far. Hopefully this will encourage > > increased patch writing from other Adium folks (certainly from me). > > > > I've been working with the dbus and guifications folks on getting > some of these neat things working on OS X. I'd be happy to write > patches for libgaim as I'm fairly familiar with how things work in a > glib based environment. Is 2.0.0 blocking on the GObjectification > work that was being done? Or is that being pushed back. > > -Colin Nope, I think 2.0.0 is really only blocking on getting status stuff working better and squashing the bigger bugs. Are people still trying to get the voice/video stuff into 2.0.0? Personally I'd like to see us release 3.0.0 in mid February with voice/video and better privacy. Possibly some GObjectification--I don't know the status of that. -Mark |
From: Mark D. <ma...@ki...> - 2005-10-28 22:06:05
|
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 17:08:26 -0400, Evan Schoenberg wrote > The biggest set of changes which need to be addressed.. and I > haven't looked at the new 2.0 status stuff to see if they already > are.. is that each prpl's code in libgaim is currently hacked to > send out a buddy-status-message-changed (or something like that) > signal when a status message changes [without the away state > necessarily changing]. For example, an away AIM contact changes > her away message -- libgaim sends out a signal. Does such a signal > already exist in 2.0? There is a "buddy-away" signal in blist.c, but I have a feeling it is not emitted when the away messages changes but the state does not. It should be made to do so, though. Actually, maybe those signals should be emitted from status.c? -Mark |
From: Etan R. <de...@ed...> - 2005-10-29 04:36:08
|
On Fri, 28 Oct 2005, Mark Doliner wrote: > On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 17:08:26 -0400, Evan Schoenberg wrote >> The biggest set of changes which need to be addressed.. and I >> haven't looked at the new 2.0 status stuff to see if they already >> are.. is that each prpl's code in libgaim is currently hacked to >> send out a buddy-status-message-changed (or something like that) >> signal when a status message changes [without the away state >> necessarily changing]. For example, an away AIM contact changes >> her away message -- libgaim sends out a signal. Does such a signal >> already exist in 2.0? > > There is a "buddy-away" signal in blist.c, but I have a feeling it is not > emitted when the away messages changes but the state does not. It should be > made to do so, though. Actually, maybe those signals should be emitted from > status.c? > > -Mark There were some patches in the tracker for a signal like that, I grabbed them and am working on them. I intend to commit them soon. -Etan |