Re: Is now gdk-bixbuf the part of gtk+-2?

[Allin Cottrell <cottrell wfu edu>]

On Mon, 26 Sep 2005, John (J5) Palmieri wrote:

> On Mon, 2005-09-26 at 09:25 -0400, Allin Cottrell wrote:
> > On Mon, 26 Sep 2005, Yury Aliaev wrote:
> >
> > > I'm wondering whether the gdk-pixbuf library is the required part of modern
> > > gtk+ distributions (I mean 2.6.x and 2.8.x)? In other words, should I add
> > > extra check in configure in for gdk-pixbuf in my gtk+-2 application?
> >
> > You don't need an extra configure check, since gdk-pixbuf is an
> > integral part of the gtk+-2 package (that is, it will be missing
> > only if the gtk+-2 installation is broken).
>
> Actually I believe you do.  On Fedora gdk-pixbuf is a separate package
> so if a developer doesn't have gdk-pixbuf-devel package installed
> configure should detect this and throw an error.

I may have misinterpreted the orginal question, but I took it to 
refer to a PKG_CONFIG check -- in which case, I believe, checking 
for "gtk+-2.0" should be sufficient.

But if we're talking about rpm checks than all bets are off, since 
we have to reckon with the salami tactics of the various distros.

This is probably not the place to spout on the latter issue, but 
I'll do so briefly regardless.  I think the common division of "foo" 
packages from "foo-devel" packages in Linux distros is a confusing 
archaism.  You don't have to be a "developer" to want to compile 
packaged code from time to time.  Hard disk space is cheap and 
headers are small: headers ought to be installed by default.  By all 
means separate off static libraries (*.a) into a distinct "devel" or 
"you-dont-want-to-know" package since nobody in their right mind has 
any use for these anyway.

Allin Cottrell