Re: GTK on Macintosh OSX

[John Ralls <jralls ceridwen us>]

On Jul 13, 2009, at 4:47 AM, Dominic Lachowicz wrote:

> It sounds like you want magic to happen. Either you have to use some
> sort of script to re-normalize the paths, or you can use glib's
> functions to look up data files relative to the bundle itself, without
> needing to write (much) OSX-specific ObjC code. It's not "inventing"
> anything. It's just implementing these APIs in terms of how the
> operating system's packaging conventions behave.
>
> Best,
> Dom
>
> On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 10:47 PM, John Ralls<jralls ceridwen us>  
> wrote:
> > On Jul 12, 2009, at 6:18 PM, Dominic Lachowicz wrote:
> >
> > > Glib on Win32 has routines to solve this problem. It resolves things
> > > relative to where the Glib DLL is installed. If your applications  
> > > use
> > > the XDG data directory functions in Glib, you might get away with  
> > > this
> > > too. Maybe you could invent something similar that used the OSX  
> > > bundle
> > > as your point of reference.
> >
> >
> > The routines only solve the problem if they're used.
> >
> > Don't need to invent anything. The core foundation functions are  
> > easy to
> > use, and Richard Hult already abstracted it into a gobject. But the  
> > code
> > still has to be patched. It's not just application code, either, but
> > infrastructure libraries like gconf, gnome-keyring, dbus, etc.
> >
> > I set up a $PREFIX of /usr/local/gtk, built Gnucash, and ran `find
> > /usr/local/gtk -name *.dylib -exec strings \{\} | grep -H 'local/ 
> > gtk' \; `
> > and got more than 100 hits. Many of them are likely to be just a  
> > define that
> > isn't used for anything, but every one would have to be examined,  
> > and a
> > goodly number of them would require patching.
> >
> > Regards,
> > John Ralls

Um, I think that's what I said, except for the part about magic.

The problem isn't in the code I'm working on (Gnucash), it's in many  
of the various libraries that Gnucash depends upon. While GTK+/Pango/ 
Cairo are included in that list, they're by no means all, or perhaps  
even any, of the problem. I brought it up here as a side issue to my  
main concern, and even added that I wasn't sure it's the right place.

Now I'm pretty sure that it isn't.

Regards,
John Ralls