RE: [directfb-dev] [g-i]GTK 2.8.18 with directfb support packages [was:Re: [g-i] Graphical installer and PPC systems]
> 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.
> Until now I have maneged to make a separate set of targets in the
debian/rules.
>
> Still there are some problems because in the Debian package it seems
> that the configure* files have also some .orig counterparts and I
> haven't figured yet what is the flow of the things during the build
> for these files. (directfb gdk-target is still not visible, because
> the configure* files are rewritten - this is the most recent info I
> have, but I had to blindly try to compile the package and went on a
> wrong track for some time causing me to waste about 4-5 hours).
>
> 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]).
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?
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.
regards,
Davide
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2006/06/msg00667.html
[2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2006/06/msg00687.html
[3] http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2006/06/msg00902.html
Reply to: