Re: Gtk 2.10 (DirectFB) progress report - update
On Sat, Sep 02, 2006, Dave Beckett wrote:
> I already said that I won't change/bloat the cairo+directfb udebs
> that are for the installer. They don't need PDF and PS support
> and do need lib/dev debs that match the udeb so that other udebs
> can be built against them, such as the gtk+directfb udeb.
I agree that we don't need the PDF/PS support in cairo's udebs because
we don't need printing support in gtk's udebs, but since I can't easily
cut away printing support in gtk, I now need cairo udeb with PDF/PS
I don't know whether it's an useful measure of the final real runtime
memory consumption, but the *.so sizes are:
which is a non-negligible 15% indeed.
> Is this gtk bump is really required for the etch release?
> At this stage I'm not seeing why gtk+directfb is a priority to have
> versus having stability of libraries.
That's a good question, but I think we at least need to try, and that
involves building stuff in experimental, and testing.
> If necessary we'll have to make a 3rd rebuild of cairo. I'm wondering
> about having two source packages, one that builds the udeb+deb
> cairo+directfb minimal (which can be subjected to release freezes)
> and the other that builds the cairo/cairo+directfb with full features.
That's a bit risky, but we can try; I guess we will immediately see
whether some symbols are missing.
> Or can I just enable directfb in the main cairo build? Do you really
> want a cairo with no X?
I prefer the current approach; it bloats less DirectFB only apps. I
don't know any app which would benefit from a DirectFB+X cairo.
Loïc Minier <email@example.com>