Re: unsubscribe

On Wed, 2006-11-22 at 18:16 +0530, Ravinder S. Kamal wrote:
> Unsubscribe rkamal@sebiz.net

you need to send that to abiword-dev-request@abisource.com , not
abiword-dev.

Marc

> -----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 15:31:37 2006