Re: Graphical installer - invitation to get involved
On Sat, Dec 03, 2005 at 08:25:36PM +0100, Attilio Fiandrotti wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
> >On Sat, Dec 03, 2005 at 07:33:16PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> >
> >>On Sat, Dec 03, 2005 at 04:29:50PM +0100, Attilio Fiandrotti wrote:
> >>
> >>>>5. A graphical partitioner is probably the biggest missing peice, I
> >>>>didn't really test how the partitioner came through, just did a "wipe
> >>>>entire disk" and it was still a pain.
> >>>
> >>>AFAIK xavier oswald was trying to merge gparted nto the graphical d-i
> >>>and making it run with GTKDFB, but i haven't had news from him from a
> >>>week or two..
> >>
> >>It will need gtk-dfb 2.8.x, since gparted is built using newer widgets not
> >>found in 2.0.x
> >
> >
> >And udebs containing libstdc++, libsigc++, libglibmm and a version of
> >libgtkmm
> >built against libgtk-directfb. libglibmm the maintainer was ready to
> >upload,
> >but it needs the two first ones first, and doko has not replied about
> >libstdc++ yet.
>
> i hope libgtkmm/libglibmm are not so tied to X as was libvte, that i
> once wanted to use in the g-i to provide a terminal without the need to
> do VT switching.
I don't think so, libglibmm is pure text at least, and i believe libgtkmm to
be buildable against libgtk. After all, libgtkmm are just C++ bindings for
libgtk, but i may be wrong, we will see.
> If we could compile libvte against libgtk+-directfb we could also
> include a VT into the g-i.
Yep. What where the problem with it ?
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: