Re: RFC: Ideas for preferences dialog

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.


> Thanks,
> James
> _______________________________________________
> Cheese-list mailing list
> Cheese-list gnome org
this mail was sent using 100% recycled electrons
daniel g. siegel <dgsiegel gmail com>
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

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