[Introspector-mingw32] Fwd: Re: new win32 port of GTK http://introspector.sourceforge.net/dia_win32.htm

[James M. D. <mdu...@ya...>]

--- Owen Taylor <ot...@re...> wrote:
> From Owen Taylor Tue Jan  7 08:38:54 2003
> To: James Michael DuPont <mdu...@ya...>
> CC: gtk...@gn...
> Subject: Re: new win32 port of GTK
> http://introspector.sourceforge.net/dia_win32.htm
> From: Owen Taylor <ot...@re...>
> Date: Tue,  7 Jan 2003 11:38:54 -0500 (EST)
> 
> 
> James Michael DuPont <mdu...@ya...> writes:
> 
> > --- Owen Taylor <ot...@re...> wrote:
> > > 
> > > James Michael DuPont <mdu...@ya...> writes:
> > > 
> > > > Dear GTK developers
> > > > I would like to introduce myself,
> > > > my name is Mike DuPont, and I have been working on a new port
> of
> > > GTK to
> > > > windows. 
> > > 
> > > I'm not sure I quite understand.
> > > 
> > > There can be only a single port of GTK+ to Win32. Anything else
> > > would be ridiculous. 
> > The current port is difficult to use. It is based on the idea of
> > downloading dlls from all over the net. There is no place that you
> can
> > get all the requirements for building GTk and *all* prerequisites.
> 
> Well, that's just as true for the Unix builds as well, except that
> the dependencies are more common there.
> 
> > Many people who distribute the dlls dont put the source in the same
> > place as required by the GPL section 3. 
> 
> If you know of such circumstances, please let me know (privately)
> and I'll contact them. 
>  
> [...]
>  
> > >There has to be a single place for people
> > > to send patches. 
> > I will also be submitting my patches to you. In fact, most of the
> > patches are for the debian cross compiling, the patches to the
> > makefiles, etc. All patches will be submitted to the respective
> people,
> > but i can tell you that debian version of GTK is not the version
> that
> > you use, they apply a patch to it.
> 
> The Debian GTK+ package maintainers are free to include patches;
> we include a couple of patches in the Red Hat GTK+ package.
> If the patches they use are of general interest, I'm quite
> confident that they know it is in their best interest to send
> them upstream.
>  
> [...]
> 
> > > What, exactly, do you mean by "port"?
> > 
> > a port is a when you setup a new way to compile a software in a new
> > environment. Ie : porting to a new os, new compiler or even porting
> > from a library to another. 
> > 
> > My port of the gtk and other tools is new because it sets a
> standard as
> > to how to get the source, how to configure, and how to build and
> > install a win32 app from inside linux : dpkg-buildpackage, dpkg -i
> > 
> > So I am creating a new distribution of GTK, using a new compiler,
> and
> > providing a new build environment. You can say that we have
> "ported" 10
> > packages to the "Debian GNU/Linux Mingw32 Cross Compiler build
> > Environment"
> 
> OK, I think this is a reasonable use of the word port. However, it
> doesn't correspond to the way we use it in the GTK+ world. 
> Ports of GTK+ are code additions to make it possible to compile GTK+
> with new windowing systems.
> 
> You "just" have a build system :-)
> 
> > > > The reason for this port is the mess with the dlls and the
> problems
> > > > with recompiling the entire package. While this may not be that
> > > > important to all of you, it is difficult to make broad changes
> to
> > > the
> > > > framework with the current setup.
> > > 
> > > What sort of "broad changes to the framework" are you
> considering?
> > like static compilation, or compiling it with a new compiler. 
> > I am working on a gcc patch, and to use on a source program
> properly I
> > need to recompile it,and all the modules again.
> > 
> > > 
> > > I'm am also concerned about the difficulty of compiling the Win32
> > > port of GTK+ currently, but any fixes (and the biggest one is
> > > simply documentation) absolutely need to be done in conjunction 
> > > with Tor.
> > 
> > Tor knows about my issues, and hans as well. 
> > 
> > Hans told me to go to hell after i asked him for the sources for
> the
> > dlls he is posting, according the GPL.
> > Tor is a lot nicer, and has been helpful.
> > 
> > I tell you, many people are not happy with the current state, and i
> > dont think that the current distributions of the gtk binarys are
> gpl
> > compliant. That is why it is so hard to get all the sources. If we
> were
> > to take the gpl by the letter, you need to provide all the sources
> of
> > all the non-standard dlls that you have, the entire toolchain as I
> am
> > doing it with the binaries. At least with my port, you will have a
> copy
> > of all the sources in a standard place, and a standard way to build
> > them.
> 
> Let me just lay down a ground rule here -- this is my personal
> opinion, but I don't think any of the GTK+ team will disagree:
> 
>  - We take LGPL compliance seriously. If someone is distributing
>    binaries of an LGPL library, they typically have an obligation 
>    to provide the sources as well. If someone sees problems
>    in this area with respect to libraries maintained by the
>    GTK+ team, please contact the GTK+ team privately. 
>    (Mail me, or gt...@gt...)
> 
>  - Being able to compile our libraries easily is important;
>    if the libraries are hard to compile, then we will get
>    less contributions.
> 
>  - These two isues are entirely unrelated. If people are 
>    unhappy with the ease of compilation of GTK+ on a platform,
>    they should work on making it easier (as you seem to be
>    doing), not try to force people to make it easy to compile
>    for them by GPL lawyering.
> 
> Regards,
>                                         Owen


=====
James Michael DuPont
http://introspector.sourceforge.net/

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com