Re: Glade 3.0 stable branched

[Vincent Geddes <vgeddes metroweb co za>]

On Sun, 2006-10-01 at 12:06 -0400, Tristan Van Berkom wrote:
> There must be something I dont understand - after reading the
> recent planet.g.o post about spoon - I dont know why on earth anyone
> would want to depend on scrollkeeper at all (not to mention it would
> be yet another instance of #ifdef HAVE_SCROLLKEEPER dual builds -
> which I am religiously against and will avoid if I can).
> 
> Maybe one of you can enlighten me to the meaning of this phrase:
>   "The main issue with glade3 having GNOME documentation is ScrollKeeper."
>                               -Tristan
> 

Ok, maybe I wasn't very clear in my earlier post. Scrollkeeper is an
executable and not a library, so glade cannot link to it. However, when
doing a `make install', glade would need to execute scrollkeeper in
order for the glade documentation to be registered.

The implication of this is that scrollkeeper would be dependency for
installing glade. That is the issue. This is the reason I created a
`--disable-scrollkeeper' option, ensuring glade can be installible on
win32 systems where scrollkeeper isn't available (from what I heard).


cheers

Vincent