Yes, this is a most annoying thing. I really have no visibility into
any of the decisions and why they were made on the WebKitGTK side or
such. I just need to react to this threat of pulling Xiphos out of the
For anyone with access to Rawhide, here is the link to the scratch
build I did switching out to the wk2 API and activating the webkit
editor as well.
Follow the sub-build links there to your architecture, and give the
xiphos-common and xiphos-gtk3 RPMs a download and install. Let me know
if there's anything wrong with the builds themselves.
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 6:43 AM, Karl Kleinpaste <k...@kleinpaste.org> wrote:
> On 09/19/2016 05:39 PM, Greg Hellings wrote:
> The recommended solution is to move to the webkit2 API
> Yes, there was discussion of this in #xiphos a week or so ago, though with
> regard to Ubuntu.
> The WK2 configuration builds, runs without crashing...and looks like total
> crap. I don't know what they did to it in the last year but basic operations
> that have been in place for something like 10 years now render a main window
> that is crippled. Chris Bayliss says it's not WK2 itself but our packing of
> GTK widgets -- I dunno, it seems to me that Everything Worked Just Fine for
> an indecently long time, considering that even today it looks right and
> works correctly with plain old WK, but now the upgrade treadmill has us
> looking yet again at a toolkit change. Considering the differences required
> for WK2 over WK, WK2 becomes the 6th display toolkit used by
> GnomeSword/Xiphos in 15 years. This gets old.
> Yes, it will have to be dealt with. Comedy is not pretty. A related problem
> is that the editor component was not ported to WK2 because at the time Chris
> couldn't find adequate documentation of its API, as to its differences from
> original WK. That is, at the moment, the latest-hotness WK2 build still uses
> the GTKHTML editor. Incongruous, I know. Funny, perhaps, but oddly enough
> it works. Er, worked until WK2 went off the deep end.
> (Why does WK2 have any API differences from WK? What benefit is reaped from
> gratuitously ripping up an interface? Why could not the internal
> re-implementation still present an identical application-facing interface?
> -- Eh, don't answer that, I already know.)
> I have a politically incorrect yet tractable plan for how to deal with
> xiphos-devel mailing list
xiphos-devel mailing list