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

Re: FW: [directfb-dev] Cairo

Viti Davide wrote:
They are probably aware of this as Davide and Attilio have bugged the
maintainer a lot in the last few weeks, afaik.

Yes, dfb people are well aware of it and I almost got to the point where
I feel stupi everytime I try to make clear how important  it would be
for us to have a new upstream official release.

Me too :)

Anyway I'm sure that having dfb backend included in the main cairo
sources would be a major step ahead for debian.

i agree

I think Davide has been testing and working with Mike to solve a few
problems in gtkdfbm, but more invlolvemt on both sides would be good.

Mike has shown his interest in helping other projects (and d-I in
particular) quite a few times and I think we could
Push for a new official upstream release based on gtk+2.8.x in the near
future, maybe after Frans'
Public announcement of the g-i.

yes, i think this what we should really ask for: GDKDFB being included in standard GTK and CAIRODFB in standard CAIRO. I think DFB becoming a "standard" part of GTK and DFB will contribute to make it more stable and widely known and developed, and also will facilitate the building process of udebs. ATM we're using GTKDFB 2.0.9: this version is very old so lacks of many features that would be very useful (and also has some annoying bugs Mike is trying to correct right now in a backport effort). GTKDFB 2.8.3 basically works but has still many bugs (some of them seem serious and make it less reliable that GTKDFB 2.0.9) and many unfinished parts. I suppose that any serius usage of GTKDFB 2.8.3 will require it to be completed and debugged first, and if becomes a standard component of GTK there should be more chances of it being completed. Also, i suppose it would be easier to pack GTKDFB 2.8.3 components into udebs if pieces come from standard GTK and CAIRO trees (or not?). Note that to switch to GTKDFB 2.8.3 we'll also need slim and cairo that have not yet packaged into udebs yet (i think).

So, this is what i would like to reply to Mike on the directfb developers ML after his last call for suggestions on how should the GTKDFB developement proceed, do you agree?



Reply to: