On Mi, 2008-04-02 at 14:09 -0700, James Liggett wrote: > On Wed, 2008-04-02 at 23:40 +0300, Stefan Kost wrote: > > GConf as such is not that poirtable (or it won't make sense). But unless someone > > plans to port Cheese to Mac or Win32, just ignore my comment. > Based on some quick googling, it seems your point is perfectly valid. I > honestly have no idea what our broader portability priorities are. As it > stands now, we just use GConf directly, so anyone wanting to port to Mac > or Windows would probably need to rip out CheeseGConf and reimplement it > anyway. We don't have the fancy backend stuff like Buzztard does ;) > > To all: Seeing that Stefan brought it up, it might be worth asking > before I make changes: Do we want to make portability to non Unix > platforms a priority here? I think it would be wise if we covered our > bases and did so. If this is the case I will (grudgingly) leave > CheeseGConf as-is for now. well.. to be honest: we use v4l/v4l2, wich is definitely a linux-only thing. i can imagine, that cheese might work on a bsd platform, it works on a maemo platform, but thats it. so if there isnt a "port" of v4l/v4l2 to windows or mac, i would just ignore the portability and concentrate on something good on linux. daniel > > Thanks, > James > > _______________________________________________ > Cheese-list mailing list > Cheese-list gnome org > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/cheese-list -- this mail was sent using 100% recycled electrons ================================================ daniel g. siegel <dgsiegel gmail com> http://home.cs.tum.edu/~siegel gnupg key id: 0x6EEC9E62 fingerprint: DE5B 1F64 9034 1FB6 E120 DE10 268D AFD5 6EEC 9E62 encrypted email preferred
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part