On Mon, 2008-01-14 at 15:41 -0600, Jameson "Chema" Quinn wrote: > I'm still noodling around, trying to settle on a good design for > develop. It looks as if libglade would be nice to have. The interfaces > it uses are loaded directly from XML, which makes them separate from > the source code. I did a naive 'yum install libglade' and my XO pulled > 100k for the library and about 3.5 MB (uncompressed) of dependencies. > For our purposes, under .5MB of those dependencies are really needed. > > If, after rebuilding to remove dependencies on gnome-libs and the > like, the whole thing came in at less than half a megabyte of > uncompressed code, do people think it should be included in the base > system? Obviously, the OLPC version would include all the sugar > widgets...
Use GtkBuilder instead. It is based off of libglade the biggest difference is instead of a widget tag there is an object tag. It also loads files a bit differently as you don't need to have top level windows like you do in LibGlade but there is no way to say load from a specific root in the xml tree so you end up having to split the file into different pieces depending on how you structure your UI. -- John (J5) Palmieri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
