On 13:24 Tue 29 Mar , Diego Flameeyes Petten? wrote: > On Tuesday 29 March 2005 13:11, Stefan Sperling wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 01:04:13PM +0200, Diego Flameeyes Petten? wrote: > > > -gtk +gtk2 is a no-op. > > why? > As Brian said, gtk2 depends on gtk. > Just as a practical example, take ethereal, which could be built without gui > support, just using tethereal. > If you build it with -gtk +gtk2, it will build tethereal, not ethereal. I > submitted some time ago a patch to make this a more logical behaviour, but I > needed to change it to suit the same behaviour of other packages. See bug > #81055. > > Take also amule which you can find on bugzilla as an example, which can be > built without gtk support, and on which gtk2 support depends on gtk. > > Or wxGTK in which +wxnogtk flag is used to disable gtk1 support (there's gtk2 > flag but no gtk flag). > > I still think this is illogical, but I can't do much on this. >
What if I want things to be built without gtk where ever possible, but I want things that have to use either gtk1 or gtk2 to use gtk2? Under the current method this is what -gtk gtk2 should do, since something that has to use gtk won't have a gtk flag, but if there's a choice between gtk1 and gtk2, it should have a gtk2 flag. I don't see how this would be possible under ferringb's scheme, so I prefer the current way (though if ferringb's way of doing it could be modified to do this without getting too ugly I'd be just as happy with that). -- djm -- [email protected] mailing list
