unsubscribe

Unsubscribe rkamal@sebiz.net

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-abiword-dev@abisource.com
[mailto:owner-abiword-dev@abisource.com] On Behalf Of Robert Staudinger
Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 6:12 PM
To: msevior@physics.unimelb.edu.au
Cc: Tomeu Vizoso; abiword-dev
Subject: Re: libabiword (Re: [sugar] A few more toolbar buttons for
AbiWord?)

On 11/22/06, msevior@physics.unimelb.edu.au
<msevior@physics.unimelb.edu.au> wrote:

[...]

> Hi Rob,
> Just to be clear. Does this produce a libAbiWord_private.so and
an
> AbiWord-2.6 executable that just calls libAbiWord_private.so?

Yes, but the library is called libabiword.so

> Does the *.so include *everything* else (bar the plugins)?

Yes, but it might be nice to at some point split out the dialogs from
the library and build them into the application, so the library gets
slimmer. OTOH consumers may want to use (a subset of) dialogs. Needs
pondering.

> If so, I'm not adverse to committing this to HEAD.
>
> What do others think?
>
> If we did this we could create a python wrapper around the GtkWidget
> abiwidget and then use that to construct the sugar application.

The biggest downsides probably are
  + Building with libtool takes longer
  + Library + binary is bigger than binary only
     (6.7M vs. 5.3K exec. + 8.1M lib, all stripped)

That said it would be easy to build standalone executable and
executable+library in the same make run, but I'm afraid that either of
the methods would not receive as much testing (and we have been
growing a daunting cross-product of configurations already).

Cheers,
Rob
Received on Wed Nov 22 13:47:49 2006