> I have been fighting the whole Sunday to make a patch to the debian > package gtk+2.0 so that it produces also a library with the directfb > backend.
why? The Gnome team will support the D-I team in producing the gtk+-directfb packages. > Until now I have maneged to make a separate set of targets in the debian/rules. > > Still there are some problems because in the Debian package it seems > that the configure* files have also some .orig counterparts and I > haven't figured yet what is the flow of the things during the build > for these files. (directfb gdk-target is still not visible, because > the configure* files are rewritten - this is the most recent info I > have, but I had to blindly try to compile the package and went on a > wrong track for some time causing me to waste about 4-5 hours). > > I am still unsure about the way I should tell the build system to use > the cairo.so file provided by the libcairo2-directfb-dev package > (Dave, I fear that symlinks will be necessary for this file, > too). Also I am not sure if the so file should not be called something > like cairo-directfb.so, but am so unsure of these things that i think > nothing should be done until this issue is calrified. Cairo is fine and, apart from the couple of things pointed out by Frans, package can be used for compiling gtk+: why should we delay things? why should the library be renamed? there's no such an issue and things have been handled properly via .pc file. have you checked the packages? (yes, I have) Would you please double check before sendig such messages to package maintainers and Multiple MLs? > Now I think I got the general idea behind the build process of gtk+2.0 > Debian package and I hope I will manage to get tonight the direcfb > library to build. The library builds fine already (see [2] and [3]). Are you familiar with rebuilding all the libraries, the needed udebs and the mini.iso (I know you've rebuilt from source Dave's package)? have you managed to rebuild the new libraries and to create a g-i image based on those? if so, can you please provide a link to a ppc mini.iso based on the new libs? >From one of your messages on d-boot ([1]) you say that current ppc g-i is broken, so shouldn't the crash be fixed before trying to use the new libraries or do you blindly assume that everythings will be magically ok with the new libs? your help is of course _very_ welcome, but to me it looks like you're doing the wrong thing at the wrong time: rebuilding the libs from scratch was very useful a while back (before and soon after Extremadura), when Mike needed the support for putting the dfb backend into cvs and at the time Attilio and myself spent alot of time and effort on doing this (see wikis). now what is needed is testing the packages produced by the official maintainers and not duplicating their work or delaying other people' work. regards, Davide [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2006/06/msg00667.html [2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2006/06/msg00687.html [3] http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2006/06/msg00902.html
