On Wed, 19 Dec 2001, Martin Sevior wrote:
> >
> > I definately won't accept moving the gdk-pixbuf loader out of the main
> > tree. It should have been there to begin with. I only made a plugin
> > because it was easier to develop it that way (less linking) and I wanted
> > to see how the plugins work.
> >
> > The gdk-pixbuf loader stays in the main tree. Period.
> >
>
> Hmm I wrote this without seeing Dom's MANDATE. I can live with that
> provided it gets built and distributed with all copies of abiword. I can
> just see rpm builder at company X saying "which of these plugins actually
> works with our distro??? Bah it's too hard and they're not important
> really."
>
> I'm not happy but I can live with this. I do regret making the code a
> plugin. I'm going to have to spend hours educating build from src'ers why
> they should build the gdk-pixbuf plugin.
>
OK for what it's worth, as it things currently stand the gdk-pixbuf
loader it will fail on gtk-only builds because it expects a gdk-pixbuf.so
to be linked against abiword.
The plugin will only work for gtk-only if someone writes a Makefile to
link against gdk-pixbuf.a in the plugin for gtk only. Of course for a
gnome build this will have to be disabled so it can link against the
.so in the main tree. So we will need an optional build for
gtk/gnome in the plugin directory.
Also maintaining plugins is more work than code in the main tree. Changes
in the imp/exp directory may cause a previously built plugin to fail
against a new build of abiword.
All in all I'd much rather have gtk-only gdk-pixbuf loader in the plugins
and the code as it currently stands in the main tree. They will need to be
sperately maintained anyway.
Cheers
Martin
