Subject: Re: I plan to move AbiGdkPixbuf into the main tree.
From: Martin Sevior (msevior@mccubbin.ph.unimelb.edu.au)
Date: Tue Dec 18 2001 - 09:25:52 CST
On Wed, 19 Dec 2001, Martin Sevior wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 18 Dec 2001, Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2001-12-18 at 09:03, Martin Sevior wrote:
> > > The plugin is still there. I did not touch that code at all. This is great
> > > that you can make it assuming just gdk-pixbuf. Keep doing it. The more the
> > > merrier. Everyone is happy.
> >
> > So your proposed solution is to keep two copies of the code on two
> > different abiword modules?
> >
> > Facts:
> > 1) src of gdkpixbuf plugin in main module
> > 2) src of gdkpixbuf plugin _also_ in plugins module
> > 3) 1) and 2) cause a maintenance hell
>
> I'll take responsibility for it.
>
> > 4) previously, gnome AND gtk builds could benefit from the plugin
>
> They can continue to do so.
>
> > 5) removing the plugin from the plugins module will result in that
> > only gnome build benefits from the plugin
> >
> > I utterly fail to see the benefits.
> > Can you please enlighten us all in how can everyone be happy?
> >
>
> The gnome build gets it by default. It is much easier to have this in the
> main tree.
>
> > Possible solutions:
> > 1) let all be as it is
> > maintenance hell
>
> I go for this. It's my job.
>
> > 2) remove the plugin from the plugins
> > The result will be that gtk build will never benefit from the
> > plugin unless someone copies it from someplace else.
>
> I don't agree with this.
>
> > 3) remove plugin from main source and let it be on plugins
> > The result is that whoever installs abiword (either gnome or gtk),
> > would have to install the plugin separately.
>
> I don't go for this. The gdk-pixbuf loader is a feature of the gnome
> platform. It should available by default for every gnome user with no
> extra hassle at all.
>
> > 4) provide an option (ABI_PLUGIN_ABIWORD) so that a gtk build can also
> > build the plugin
> >
>
> I don't understand this. What are you suggesting? You link the plugin to
> gdk-pixbuf seperately in the rpm in your spec file and distribute that as
> a binary? That would be a good solution for gtk only types I guess.
>
> > I am all for 4 or 3 (by order of best choice), but 1 is unacceptable,
> > and 2 is definitely not the way.
> >
>
> I definately won't accept moving the gdk-pixbuf loader out of the main
> tree. It should have been there to begin with. I only made a plugin
> because it was easier to develop it that way (less linking) and I wanted
> to see how the plugins work.
>
> The gdk-pixbuf loader stays in the main tree. Period.
>
Hmm I wrote this without seeing Dom's MANDATE. I can live with that
provided it gets built and distributed with all copies of abiword. I can
just see rpm builder at company X saying "which of these plugins actually
works with our distro??? Bah it's too hard and they're not important
really."
I'm not happy but I can live with this. I do regret making the code a
plugin. I'm going to have to spend hours educating build from src'ers why
they should build the gdk-pixbuf plugin.
Martin
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Tue Dec 18 2001 - 09:25:55 CST