[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: guile-gtk?

From: rm
Subject: Re: guile-gtk?
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 22:57:50 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.0.1i

On Sun, Jul 15, 2001 at 04:07:59PM -0400, Dale P. Smith wrote:


> I just recently tried to build guile-gtk from cvs.  It was very very
> difficult.  Even after I got all the proper pieces I still had to edit
> some files to build properly.  See the guile-gtk archives for some of my
> adventures.  You don't need *all* of gnome, just some of the
> configuration system.

That's my experience too. Hmm, maybe *all* of gnome was a of an
exageration, but i got the strong impression that a lot of the code
i get from gnome cvs assumes to exist in an all-gnome build tree.

> Supposedly, all the extra gnome spooge is for CVS guile-gtk.  A released
> tarball will already have ./configure built and should only need Guile,
> Gtk+ and standard tools to compile and install.

Yes, i understand, i recall a mail by Ariel where he explains that the
gnome spooge makes his live as a maintainer easier. But, as i allready
said: released tarballs tie the user to an old version of guile and
this can't be in the interest of the guile developers. Maybe someone should
release a tarball of guile-gtk 0.20? I think with guile we have a very
special situation because of the fact that a language meant to be em-
bedded by others has three kinds of developers/users: the language designers
(cvs), the language embedders (cvs or tarball, this is the question) and
the end users of the applications that have embedded guile. If we like it
or not, since the "embedders" have a _Strong_ dependency on guile, the
guile developers need to be carefull to limit the dependencies of guile
(or guile-gtk etc.).
Also, i personally belive that software should grow in the (build) en-
vironment in which it will later be used. 


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]