[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: GTK miniiso - status and instructions for building

Frans Pop wrote:
On Sunday 02 October 2005 23:39, Attilio Fiandrotti wrote:

After a lot of efforts to remove unneded files from .TGZs now the
situation is:

- d-i_gtk_frontend.tgz contains ONLY gtk.so compiled against my
hand-made libgtk+-directfb libs.
From now on gtk.so in d-i_gtk_frontend.tgz is chown'ed to 0:0 and
chmod'ed 644.

Please also chown the directories (not that it really makes much difference, it's just cleaner).

ok, i'll do it

- d-i_gtk_root.tgz contains ONLY my libc-2.3.5.so that is needed to
make gtk.so work (no more other files in /lib nor /etc directory)

Hmmm. What about the other config files? Are they no longer needed or should I include them in the rootskel-gtk udeb?

I am talking about:

see my next mail on this particular subject

- d-i_gtk_fonts.tgz contains fonts: actually they don't work and we
must understand why (maybe fontconfig or pango related issues?)

They worked for your homemade image before, right? Could you investigate a bit (e.g. by comparing what is in ./build/tmp/gtk-miniiso/tree with what was in your own CD)?

i tried to do this this night but i couldn't solve the problem

So i ask myself if it's better

a)Try to make the libgtk+directfb 2.0.9.x.y udeb work to get rid of
unneded archives immediatly and later switch to GTKDFB 2.8

I think we should spend a bit more time on this. Maybe we could get Alastair to include a -dev package (deb, not udeb) against which we can compile the frontend? Would that help?

that would be the best option for sure (fast, no need to start packaging GTKDFB2.8 right now) but i don't know if Alastair has time to do it and even if he does it other strange problems may rise up.. (maybe i should be more optimistic.. :)

b)Stay with .tgz archives (including my libgtk+directfb libs & related
files) until GTKDFB 2.8 is ready to be packaged

If we can not get it working otherwise, yes.

IMO, the more we can get working (including fonts) in an "official" way, the easier it will be to make improvements, get help and check for regressions later on.

maybe it would be better if every font is packaged "as it is now" inside an official udeb by his mantainer right now: we'll think about removing unneded glyphs later.. what do you think?

Anyway i'm very happy how things are going on :)

Me too. At least now things are manageable and we all know where we stand.


let me be a little optimistic, i think we're doing "better than yesterday, worse than tomorrow" ;)



Reply to: