Subject: Re: I plan to move AbiGdkPixbuf into the main tree.
From: Martin Sevior (msevior@mccubbin.ph.unimelb.edu.au)
Date: Tue Dec 18 2001 - 09:47:11 CST
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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Tue Dec 18 2001 - 09:47:13 CST