From: Duncan C. <dun...@wo...> - 2004-04-27 20:06:29
|
I'm not a autoconf guru so I'd appreciate if someone looks this patch over before I mess everything up! The idea (as was suggested before) is to move all the gnome modules into one gnome/* subdirectory (each module with it's own subdir) and to simplify the configure script by eliminating all the individual tests and --enable-modulefoo options down to a single --enable-gnome flag. Actually I think it makes sense to build the gnome bindings by default. The user can disable them if necessary with --disable-gnome. The other simplification is to eliminate the feature where it will build them if they are found and not otherwise. I'm not sure it's terribly useful and it's a bit harder to do when we group all the gnome modules together. Note that the attached patch also talks about gconf which I haven't committed yet. I'll take that out before committing the patch and add it back in when I add the gconf bindings. So here's my plan: * make sure my autoconf stuff is kosher then commit it * ask Axel nicely if he'll move some stuff around in cvs: glade/* -> gnome/glade/ sourceview/* -> gnome/sourceview/ * modify the makefiles to talk about the new locations * commit my new gconf bindings in gnome/gconf/ * add a gnome meta-package that depends on glade, sourceview & gconf. Duncan |
From: Duncan C. <dun...@wo...> - 2004-04-27 20:34:39
|
On Tue, 2004-04-27 at 21:06, Duncan Coutts wrote: > I'm not a autoconf guru so I'd appreciate if someone looks this patch > over before I mess everything up! Oops, forgot the attachments. Duncan |
From: Axel S. <A....@ke...> - 2004-05-05 07:34:08
|
On 27 Apr 2004, at 22:06, Duncan Coutts wrote: > So here's my plan: > * make sure my autoconf stuff is kosher then commit it > * ask Axel nicely if he'll move some stuff around in cvs: > glade/* -> gnome/glade/ > sourceview/* -> gnome/sourceview/ I know glade has some gnome extensions. Do they show up in the source code? Does the hs-glade library not work on Gtk only? The sourceview widget is not part of Gnome either, is it? > * modify the makefiles to talk about the new locations > * commit my new gconf bindings in gnome/gconf/ That definitely belongs there. Shall we make some decisions about how to use the hierarchical libraries? Maybe it should be called Gnome/GConf and later Gtk/Abstract/Widget? > * add a gnome meta-package that depends on glade, sourceview & gconf. That shouldn't be too hard if there is a Gnome.hs file that produces some code which will be the content of that package. Axel. |
From: Duncan C. <dun...@wo...> - 2004-05-05 14:30:13
|
On Wed, 2004-05-05 at 08:36, Axel Simon wrote: > On 27 Apr 2004, at 22:06, Duncan Coutts wrote: > > So here's my plan: > > * make sure my autoconf stuff is kosher then commit it > > * ask Axel nicely if he'll move some stuff around in cvs: > > glade/* -> gnome/glade/ > > sourceview/* -> gnome/sourceview/ > > I know glade has some gnome extensions. Do they show up in the source > code? Does the hs-glade library not work on Gtk only? It certainly can load gnome widgets but I guess it does some dynamic loading wizardry so that libglade.so doesn't not statically depend on libgnomeui.so. > The sourceview widget is not part of Gnome either, is it? Similarly it doesn't depend on any other gnome libs but it pretty much only gets distributed with the gnome desktop release, so in that sense it is a gnome package. I guess the crucial test of whether a module gets lumped in with --enable-gnome is: is there a significant chance of someone having the package without also have the whole collection of gnome desktop modules. So, by that test, I'd stick sourceview in with gnome but I guess it could be quite common to have gtk and libglade but not other gnome modules. Seem sensible? (if so I'll make libglade independent of --enable-gnome again) > > * modify the makefiles to talk about the new locations > > * commit my new gconf bindings in gnome/gconf/ > > That definitely belongs there. Shall we make some decisions about how > to use the hierarchical libraries? Maybe it should be called > Gnome/GConf and later Gtk/Abstract/Widget? You mean start using hierarchical libraries for new gnome modules and later convert the existing gtk ones? Seems a good idea. > > * add a gnome meta-package that depends on glade, sourceview & gconf. > > That shouldn't be too hard if there is a Gnome.hs file that produces > some code which will be the content of that package. I'll do one that just re-exports the other gnome modules. So if I create a new directory, it should be called "Gnome" rather than "gnome" to make it compatible with the hierarchical libs scheme, right? Duncan. |
From: Axel S. <A....@ke...> - 2004-05-05 16:17:29
|
On 5 May 2004, at 16:30, Duncan Coutts wrote: > It certainly can load gnome widgets but I guess it does some dynamic > loading wizardry so that libglade.so doesn't not statically depend on > libgnomeui.so. Ok, then let's keep that separate. > I'll do one that just re-exports the other gnome modules. > > So if I create a new directory, it should be called "Gnome" rather than > "gnome" to make it compatible with the hierarchical libs scheme, right? > Yep, that sounds ok. Axel. > Duncan. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Oracle 10g > Get certified on the hottest thing ever to hit the market... Oracle > 10g. > Take an Oracle 10g class now, and we'll give you the exam FREE. > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=3149&alloc_id=8166&op=click > _______________________________________________ > Gtk2hs-users mailing list > Gtk...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gtk2hs-users > |
From: Matthew W. <ma...@al...> - 2004-05-05 14:36:44
|
Duncan Coutts wrote: > Similarly it doesn't depend on any other gnome libs but it pretty much > only gets distributed with the gnome desktop release, so in that sense > it is a gnome package. > > I guess the crucial test of whether a module gets lumped in with > --enable-gnome is: is there a significant chance of someone having the > package without also have the whole collection of gnome desktop modules. > > So, by that test, I'd stick sourceview in with gnome but I guess it > could be quite common to have gtk and libglade but not other gnome > modules. > > Seem sensible? > (if so I'll make libglade independent of --enable-gnome again) Yes please, libglade is definitely not a GNOME thing in terms of what it requires, so it shouldn't need more than GTK+ and friends. I personally tend to write pure GTK+ apps, so having libglade available without having to depend on GNOME as well is nice. |
From: Duncan C. <dun...@wo...> - 2004-05-05 16:19:17
|
On Wed, 2004-05-05 at 15:36, Matthew Walton wrote: > > So, by that test, I'd stick sourceview in with gnome but I guess it > > could be quite common to have gtk and libglade but not other gnome > > modules. > > > > Seem sensible? > > (if so I'll make libglade independent of --enable-gnome again) > > Yes please, libglade is definitely not a GNOME thing in terms of what it > requires, so it shouldn't need more than GTK+ and friends. I personally > tend to write pure GTK+ apps, so having libglade available without > having to depend on GNOME as well is nice. Done in cvs. liblgade bindings will be built by default unless you specify --disable-libglade and it's independent of --(enable|disable)-gnome. Duncan |