Re: Looking for a volunteer: gnome-system-monitor porting
- From: "Thomas H.P. Andersen" <phomes gmail com>
- To: Chris Kühl <blixtra gmail com>
- Cc: Karl Lattimer <karl qdh org uk>, Benoît Dejean <benoit placenet org>, desktop-devel-list <desktop-devel-list gnome org>
- Subject: Re: Looking for a volunteer: gnome-system-monitor porting
- Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 10:58:05 +0100
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 10:25, Chris Kühl <blixtra gmail com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 9:17 PM, Thomas H.P. Andersen <phomes gmail com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 22:35, Chris Kühl <blixtra gmail com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 10:09 PM, Joseph Pingenot
>>> <gnome-ddl digitasaru net> wrote:
>>>> From Chris Kühl on Monday, 24 January, 2011:
>>>>>On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 4:24 PM, Matthias Clasen
>>>>><matthias clasen gmail com> wrote:
>>>>>> we are shipping a single gtkmm application in the meta-gnome-core
>>>>>> moduleset: gnome-system-monitor. It is nice to showcase our C++
>>>>>> bindings in this way, and a system-monitor is certainly a utility that
>>>>>> one would expect as part of the desktop. Unfortunately, it is still
>>>>>> using the 2.x bindings, and there has been no action at all to port it
>>>>>> to the bindings that we are actually going to include in GNOME 3.
>>>>>> So, the release team is looking for a volunteer to take on porting
>>>>>> gnome-system-monitor to gtk3. This should not be all that much work,
>>>>>> and there are some patches in bugzilla already.
>>>>>> Please coordinate with the maintainers before diving in (I've cc'ed them here).
>>>>>I'd like to tackle the port to the 3.0 bindings as Murray has given
>>>>>the ok to use Openismus time on this. I can start looking into it and
>>>>>talking to the maintainers tomorrow.
>>>> Sounds like you're the better option; mind if I give you some patches? :)
>>> Not at all. I'll see what I've gotten myself into when I take a closer
>>> look at the code tomorrow. As andre said on IRC, we should use the
>>> following bugs to avoid duplicate work.
>> Is the plan to go for gtk3-only or to keep compatibility for gtk2?
> Well, gtk3 has removed many of the deprecated symbols so the end
> result will be gtk3 only, from my understanding. However, before I
> switch over to building against gtk3, I'm working on getting
> everything building with gtk2 with the the disable deprecated flags.
> So, there will be a point were g-s-m will build against current gnome
> libraries without the use of deprecated symbols. It's up to the
> maintainers to decide if they want to make a release from that point,
> of course.
Using lots of ifdefs could keep the gtk2 compatibility. I would rather
avoid the extra work so I am just asking before I do any patches.
>> Would it be reasonable to start landing the patches from bugzilla in a
> Yes, I'm taking the patches from the above bug reports.
Having a branch that is converging on compiling with gtk3 would make
it easier to collaborate imo. But I can also just apply the patches
locally and work on top of that.
] [Thread Prev