Re: new win32 port of GTK http://introspector.sourceforge.net/dia_win32.htm

[James Michael DuPont <mdupont777 yahoo com>]

--- Hans Breuer <Hans Breuer org> wrote:
> At 11:38 07.01.03 -0500, Owen Taylor wrote:
> >
> >James Michael DuPont <mdupont777 yahoo com> writes:
> >
> >> --- Owen Taylor <otaylor redhat com> wrote:
> >> > 
> >> > James Michael DuPont <mdupont777 yahoo com> writes:
> 
> [...]
> 
> >> > I'm am also concerned about the difficulty of compiling the
> Win32
> >> > port of GTK+ currently, but any fixes (and the biggest one is
> >> > simply documentation) absolutely need to be done in conjunction 
> >> > with Tor.
> >> 
> >> Tor knows about my issues, and hans as well. 
> >> 
> Tor and me have tried to explain our build environmnts in :
> http://cvs.gnome.org/bonsai/cvsblame.cgi?file=glib/README.win32

Hans, 
because you and Tor and others did a *great* job in windows port, I am
able to do my compilation.
I understand now the build environments, you have tried to explain them
a couple of times.

I am also almost finished with the gtk+ build with the mingw32 cross
compiler.

> If there is something unclear if using a similar environment we 
> would probably both try to explain better :)

The problems are, as I have explained to you many times, not about your
instructions, but about the way the dlls are distributed.
this is the problem and the conflict here. 

1. that people are just distributing your dlls, and not the source. 
2. There is not a distribution of all the sources in the same place as
the binaries.
3. there is not all the sources needed of all the non-standard dlls.
4. there is not the real sources, not the links, not the diffs, the
real stuff.

Read the GPL FAQ, it covers all of it.

Because of this problem, people just copy what you do, and they get
futher away from the sources. In order to get all the sources, then 
you have to do alot of work. Chances are, the sources have changed and
it is more work to get the exact sources used to create the dlls.

Debian and other distro solve this problem by having a distribution of
these sources and packages in the same place. The win32 GTK stuff that
I have seen from you guys is not up to that high standard, and
therefore it is harder to use. The GPL has a purpose, to lay down a set
of rules.

If a group of people decide to bend them, that is fine. As long as no
one complains. I am complaining because many people have fought with
the dll hell of the win32 ports, the scattered sources and all that.
This time of wild west is ending. The sheriff is coming to town.

> But at least me does not know nothing about debian and cross 
> compiling for windoze, it's simply out of my business.

Well it is very simple and easy to use.

> 
> >> Hans told me to go to hell after i asked him for the sources for
> the
> >> dlls he is posting, according the GPL.

> Oh really ? Never noticed. Putting JMD on my personal trash list
> because of the signal-to-noise-ratio of his mails doesn't count, 
> does it ?

I can post my personal mail to you, asking for the sources to the gtk
and dia code that had on your webpage. After i send that to you, you
removed the dlls. Do we really have to go through this again?


> My sum up of a whole bunch of mail accusing me for violating
> the GPL is on the dia-list :
> http://mail.gnome.org/archives/dia-list/2002-August/msg00142.html

Please address the issues i stated above about the gpl compliance.

>  
> >> Tor is a lot nicer, and has been helpful.
> >> 
> He definitely is :-)
> 
> Owen's sum up on the same theme is here:
>
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gtk-devel-list/2002-September/msg00065.html


I still dont aggree. This might be your gentlemans aggreement, but it
still does not address the realities of the win32 distribution. the
proliferation of dlls without sources.

> 
> [...]
> 
> >Let me just lay down a ground rule here -- this is my personal
> >opinion, but I don't think any of the GTK+ team will disagree:
> >
> > - We take LGPL compliance seriously. If someone is distributing
> >   binaries of an LGPL library, they typically have an obligation 
> >   to provide the sources as well. If someone sees problems
> >   in this area with respect to libraries maintained by the
> >   GTK+ team, please contact the GTK+ team privately. 
> >   (Mail me, or gtkdev gtk org)
> >
> > - Being able to compile our libraries easily is important;
> >   if the libraries are hard to compile, then we will get
> >   less contributions.
> >

> Owen, how do you think cross-compiling does fit into this picture ?

The cross compiling is for people who dont have windows at home. 
The next step is to finish up the dpkg for cygwin port and get this
running under win32.  (i have started to port debhelper to cygwin)
 
> MHO still is that the improvement of the win32 port (in the Gtk
> sense) does require to build or at least debug on win32. 

They are not excluding each other.

> And I'm still assuming that most interested win32 developers do have 
> access to the Micro$oft tool chain.

the point is not just the cross compilation, but also the distribution
of sources.

> 
> > - These two isues are entirely unrelated. If people are 
> >   unhappy with the ease of compilation of GTK+ on a platform,
> >   they should work on making it easier (as you seem to be
> >   doing), not try to force people to make it easy to compile
> >   for them by GPL lawyering.
> >
> Couldn't agree more ...

The easy to compile is one thing. The GPL compliance is another. 

mike

=====
James Michael DuPont
http://introspector.sourceforge.net/

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com