Re: Win32 binaries for GTK+ 2.4.9

On Sun, 2004-09-05 at 23:33, Tor Lillqvist wrote:
> Jared Kells writes:
>  > Is there a common instalation path for gtk on win32
> Not really, nor should there be. Different sites/people have widely
> varying conventions/needs. Home users typically have just one hard
> drive "C:". But some machines (like mine, for instance) don't have any
> "C:" drive at all. Larger installations want the stuff on a network
> drive. Folders like "Program Files" have localized names on
> non-English Windows machines. Etc.

I suppose the situation under Windows is more complicated than under
linux (no standard places for libraries,etc).  However, under linux
almost everyone has one standard install for gtk that serves most uses. 
People who need special cases just provide their own gtk install along
with their program.  I don't see why this should be any different for
windows.  Why not provide a standard install for the majority of cases. 
The localization issue you mention shouldn't be a problem, nor should
the C: D: thing be.  Users can choose where to install the thing, and
then other programs can (by virtual of the path or some other env
variable) find the common install whether it's in Program Files or Files
de Programs on C:, D:, or E:.

>  > I have seen some installers install gtk to system32 
> I hope they don't put the DLLs directly in system32? That would be
> very silly. Installing a GTK subfolder in system32 is perhaps not a
> very good idea either.
>  > some install them to Program Files\Common Files\gtk-2.0 but most
>  > just install a local copy of gtk in the programs directory.
> Either should be OK.
>  > Is there or will there ever be an official gtk runtime installer
>  > for windows?
> "official" means there would be paid staff sitting in their offices
> planning and implementing GTK for Windows. Not likely. At least that's
> how I interpret the term. Jernej's installer presumably is the most
> officialish you will get.

Well Jernej's installer (and the dropline one, which is the same as far
as directory and behavior) is becoming the de facto offical installer. 
I just don't fully understand your resistance to promoting an
installable binary that will really make life easier for all those
developers wishing to ship win32 versions of their GTK apps.  Most
developers are already using the afore mentioned installer (GTK and
Gaim) and such use of a common runtime is very very nice for us users.

I've heard your arguments before, so we don't need to repeat them here. 
But the time is at hand to reconsider them I think.  With Mono, Gimp,
Gaim, and other apps getting significant windows usage (relatively
speaking), I think it would be profitable.


> --tml
> _______________________________________________
> gtk-devel-list mailing list
> gtk-devel-list gnome org
Michael L Torrie <torriem chem byu edu>

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