Re: Gtk 2.10 (DirectFB) progress report - update
Loïc Minier wrote:
> 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
This information seems the deciding point - you can't get rid of this
requirement from building gtk. So...
> I don't know whether it's an useful measure of the final real runtime
> memory consumption, but the *.so sizes are:
> 316K usr-nopdf/lib/libcairo-directfb/lib/libcairo.so.2.9.1
> 364K usr/lib/libcairo-directfb/lib/libcairo.so.2.9.1
> which is a non-negligible 15% indeed.
yes. But despite this, you need it. So as long as the debian-boot team
realises this, I'm ok with adding it to the default cairo+directfb
build; i.e. I will add the --enable-pdf and --enable-ps to the builds.
>> 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.
So what I propose is that I'll make some experimental packages with the
PDF+PS enabled and you can try building with them. Although from your
earlier emails, I expect this will just work since you've been trying
>> 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.
OK. You replied in another email about embedded users of gtk, and I can
see that as making this worthwhile to package and ship.