Re: [directfb-dev] [g-i]GTK 2.8.18 with directfb support packages [was:Re: [g-i] Graphical installer and PPC systems]
On 6/20/06, Viti Davide <Davide.Viti@siemens.com> wrote:
> 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.
I wanted to do so... and if I do it right, their work will be less.
> Until now I have maneged to make a separate set of targets in the
debian/rules.
>
> 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]).
The impression that the above messages left me is that the library
used for the image was simply built from sources and added in the
image via a tarball, not via a package. Am I not correct about this?
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?
Note: I feel much anger in your writing...
I don't consider it my responasbility to fix those images, as I have
said some time ago, I just have time for testing. In spite of that I
wanted to see gtk+2.0 packages prepared to build directfb packages,
too and hoped (not blindly) that the colour issues will disappear.
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.
Have they done this? Judging from what I know and seen in unstable,
directfb gtk packages are still unsupported. Do such experimental
packages exist?
--
Regards,
EddyP
=============================================
"Imagination is more important than knowledge" A.Einstein
Reply to: