On 6/20/06, Viti Davide <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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.
I wanted to do so... and if I do it right, their work will be less. > > Until now I have maneged to make a separate set of targets in the > debian/rules. > > > > 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]). The impression that the above messages left me is that the library used for the image was simply built from sources and added in the image via a tarball, not via a package. Am I not correct about this? > 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? Note: I feel much anger in your writing... I don't consider it my responasbility to fix those images, as I have said some time ago, I just have time for testing. In spite of that I wanted to see gtk+2.0 packages prepared to build directfb packages, too and hoped (not blindly) that the colour issues will disappear. > 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. Have they done this? Judging from what I know and seen in unstable, directfb gtk packages are still unsupported. Do such experimental packages exist? -- Regards, EddyP ============================================= "Imagination is more important than knowledge" A.Einstein _______________________________________________ directfb-dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.directfb.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/directfb-dev
