Gal ...

Hi Seth,

On 19 Sep 2001, Seth Nickell wrote:
> What will this do to application developers who need to port to GNOME2
> & have used libgal? I understand that you guys don't want to maintain
> a fork of libgal, and that work is in earnest right now to make Evo
> 1.0 happen so you don't want extra complication...but...

        As it happens, I ported ( to compile ) Gal to Gnome 2.0 in about 2
days. I have a version here on my disk which runs some of the more simple
tests - and ( after updating ) is slightly broken.

        The reason I have not committed it is mostly due to the extreme
pain I've experienced in the past in trying to sychronise CVS branches in
rapidly moving source trees pwrt. gnumeric and large global changes.

        Of course - some claim that CVS is designed to cope with this and
there is no problem - haha :-) of course - re-branching after merging is
all well and good but it takes much effort; so I was not planning on
committing until I have a working version, and a patch - so we can
consider the options inside gal for possibly having a dual build setup, or
whether to fork, or what.

        Either way - I think the users of gal are mostly evolution,
gnumeric, mrproject none of which seems to be porting to gnome 2.0 as yet
- but perhaps this is an effect of there being no gal.

        If you want to help porting, perhaps I'll go through the effort of
making some branches and committing; but the dual build seems quite
possible to me to get working.



 mmeeks gnu org  <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot

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