Re: Looking for a volunteer: gnome-system-monitor porting

[Chris Kühl <blixtra gmail com>]

On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 10:58 AM, Thomas H.P. Andersen <phomes gmail com> wrote:
> 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:
>>>>>>> Hey,
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> https://bugzilla.gnome.org/buglist.cgi?bug_id=625883,627568,632799,622928,613752
>>>
>>> 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.

I think this is best for a maintainer to decide. I've not heard back
from them yet.
I was under the impression that a straight port to gtk3 was desired.

>
>>> Would it be reasonable to start landing the patches from bugzilla in a
>>> branch?
>>>
>>
>> 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.
>

Ok, I'll publish a port_to_3-0 branch.

Chris