On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 08:34:41 +0200, Anders Broman wrote:
Hi,
Has the provision of binary bundles for Windows 32 bit and 64 bit
been discontinued?
Yes, Tor (maintainer of the Windows binaries and GTK+ bundle) has
stepped down some time ago:
http://tml-blog.blogspot.com/2011/03/gtk-on-windows-i-a
Op Thu, 08 Sep 2011 13:41:00 +0300, schreef Kalev Lember:
> There's also the option to go with cross-compiling from Linux. There are
> at least two separate efforts which use the gcc cross-compiler to
> produce ready-made binary Windows libraries, including the full GTK+
> stack.
>
> In early 2009
On Fri, 9 Sep 2011 10:08:32 +0100, Sam Thursfield wrote:
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 6:53 PM, Dieter Verfaillie
wrote:
On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 14:18:41 +0100, Sam Thursfield wrote:
Maybe it would be a good idea to stop insisting our
beloved GNOME platform should only have 1 blessed set
of binaries for Wi
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 6:53 PM, Dieter Verfaillie
wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 14:18:41 +0100, Sam Thursfield wrote:
>> Let me first remind everyone that
>> https://live.gnome.org/Windows/Discussion has a good summary of all
>> things that are being discussed here. We're kind of heading in four
>>
2011/9/8 Kean Johnston :
>> Note that many of us build programs with MinGW, so for such suite to be
>> useful, it should provide GCC-compatible import libraries.
>
> If MinGW can't use standard microsoft import libraries that (from my
> perspective) is Someone Else's Problem.
If you have the DLL,
>> Sam Thursfield wrote:
>> Let me first remind everyone that
>> https://live.gnome.org/Windows/Discussion has a good summary of all
>> things that are being discussed here. We're kind of heading in four
>> different directions at once (fedora-mingw, MSVC, native mingw, OBS)
>> so it's important we
I'm pretty sure every reasonable installer won't let you overwrite newer
file version with an older one.
This is Window's we're talking about ... my faith is a little less than
yours :)
___
gtk-devel-list mailing list
gtk-devel-list@gnome.org
http://ma
On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 22:07:59 +0200, Kean Johnston wrote:
> No I wasn't proposing it at all, I was just saying what was POSSIBLE as a
> means of combating the question posed. What i *ACTUALLY* propose is an
> easily installable set of DLL's that register themselves properly and will
> not let an
AFAIK, VC can use gccs .a files directly, but the other way around isn't
possible (since the .lib files don't contain something that gcc/ld needs).
Thanks for teh data point, I will certainly look into this.
As for Windows programmers preferring VS, this may be true, but is it also
true when ta
On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 21:55:41 +0200, Dieter Verfaillie wrote:
> If so, a well placed SetDllDirectory(lpPathName) [1]
> before loading the plugin could solve that as it places lpPathName
> between the main executable and the system directory in the dll search
> order. SetDllDirectory(NULL) can be us
On 08/09/2011 20:15, Jernej Simončič wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 19:55:27 +0200, Dieter Verfaillie wrote:
>
>> Care to disclose the name of that certain antivirus?
>> We've been looking for possible sources of this for ages
>> over @PyGTK (the Gramps devs even wrote a sanity checking
>> script to
And how exactly is doing that different from what we
already have today: libglib-2.0-0.dll?
Not in the least. The names were for illustrative purposes not intended to
be gospel.
___
gtk-devel-list mailing list
gtk-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome
On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 21:21:06 +0200, Kean Johnston wrote:
>> Note that many of us build programs with MinGW, so for such suite to be
>> useful, it should provide GCC-compatible import libraries.
> If MinGW can't use standard microsoft import libraries that (from my
> perspective) is Someone Else's
On 08/09/2011 21:21, Kean Johnston wrote:
> so even
> if we named the DLL's a bit less specifically (and just used, for example,
> glib2.dll) that still shouldn't be a problem.
And how exactly is doing that different from what we
already have today: libglib-2.0-0.dll?
mvg,
Dieter
__
Maybe it would be a good idea to stop insisting our
beloved GNOME platform should only have 1 blessed set
of binaries for Windows altogether and embrace the
diversity that has been created. All these options
are there for a reason. All of them. At the end of
Now THAT, good sir, is the most sensib
Note that many of us build programs with MinGW, so for such suite to be
useful, it should provide GCC-compatible import libraries.
If MinGW can't use standard microsoft import libraries that (from my
perspective) is Someone Else's Problem. The entire set of libraries
compiles easily enough on Mi
On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 19:55:27 +0200, Dieter Verfaillie wrote:
> Care to disclose the name of that certain antivirus?
> We've been looking for possible sources of this for ages
> over @PyGTK (the Gramps devs even wrote a sanity checking
> script to detect this and other weird situations).
I think i
On 08/09/2011 18:47, Jernej Simončič wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 14:49:55 +0200, dieterv wrote:
> No, Gimp definitely isn't a good example - just try dropping an old version
> of intl.dll to your System32 directory (like a certain well-known antivirus
> seems to do). If you do it before you ran Gi
On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 14:18:41 +0100, Sam Thursfield wrote:
> Let me first remind everyone that
> https://live.gnome.org/Windows/Discussion has a good summary of all
> things that are being discussed here. We're kind of heading in four
> different directions at once (fedora-mingw, MSVC, native mingw,
On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 at 13:41:00 +0300, Kalev Lember wrote:
> The openSUSE MinGW project however didn't go with the mingw.org
> runtime, but instead started using the mingw-w64 [4] runtime.
For what it's worth, the mingw environment available in Debian
(unstable/testing) has recently moved from min
On 08/09/2011 12:24, Olav Vitters wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 12:09:55PM +0200, dieterv wrote:
> I've given you the required permissions to SSH to master.gnome.org.
> Everything is in /ftp/pub/GNOME/binaries, etc. Recommend using sftp to
> upload stuff (note: this procedure is only for binarie
On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 14:49:55 +0200, dieterv wrote:
> No need to fiddle with %PATH% when your executable lives right next
> to libglib-2.0.dll, libgtk-2.0.dll etc. In other words, put your .exe
> and .dll's in the bin directory. Have a look at how GIMP does things,
> it's a fine example of how to p
On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 10:45:56 +0200, Kean Johnston wrote:
> Problem 1 is most easily solved by creating a custom compilation suite for
> building GTK itself using a mixture of Visual Studio 2010 and the DDK. As
> part of the work I am currently doing I am making a full set of step by
> step inst
On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 09:16:24 +0100, Martyn Russell wrote:
> What I wished we had years
> ago when I was developing on Windows was an executable which installed
> GTK+ on the system for all apps (so I didn't have to package gtk+ inside
> my own project).
I used to provide one of such installers
> Come the day we can get things
> like ProTools, Cubase etc and I'll be a happy camper.
just for reference: http://ardour.org/ (this is gtk (or gtkmm) app)
>I fully acknowledge
> that making the GTK portion shared won't necessarily help that goal, and
> that making it easy for an application ven
In theory, I agree with what you're trying to achieve here. However,
in practice I think there would be better places to direct your energy
- keeping in mind Windows takes up about 2GB of disk space these days,
12MB of DLL's for each of the maybe 10 Gtk apps I have on Windows
While I agree with th
Before running off in all different direction I'd prefer to have updated (GTK+
2.24) old school
Bundles from the download site as they are immediately useful as at least we
have based our
NSI installer on this method of distribution. THEN different/smarter ways could
be devised as it stand
peo
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 2:15 PM, Kean Johnston wrote:
>> At least bundling everything with my app let's me sleep at night, knowing
>> some unknown installer out there is not going to break my stuff which has
>> taken countless hours to build.
>
> Why do you think this is unique to Windows? If you c
On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 00:12:09 +1200, John Stowers wrote:
It takes a "build description" file like:
https://github.com/dieterv/pygtk-installer/blob/master/wix/2.24.0.win32.xml
downloads required files, extracts them, applies transformations if
requested,
repacks, etc until finally a .msi is produc
Let me first remind everyone that
https://live.gnome.org/Windows/Discussion has a good summary of all
things that are being discussed here. We're kind of heading in four
different directions at once (fedora-mingw, MSVC, native mingw, OBS)
so it's important we keep track :)
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 1
At least bundling everything with my app let's me sleep at night, knowing
some unknown installer out there is not going to break my stuff which has
taken countless hours to build.
Why do you think this is unique to Windows? If you create a .rpm or .deb
that depends on version x.y.z of some librar
That's a really bad idea for several reasons. First, we don't have the
resources to test ABI compatibility on windows, there has been cases where
some versions have crashed windows apps.
Are you talking about ABI compatibility between varying GTK releases or
between various Windows releases? If t
On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 12:25:25 +0100, Martyn Russell wrote:
On 08/09/11 11:39, Alberto Ruiz wrote:
That's a really bad idea for several reasons. First, we don't have
the
resources to test ABI compatibility on windows, there has been cases
where some versions have crashed windows apps.
You mean
> It takes a "build description" file like:
> https://github.com/dieterv/pygtk-installer/blob/master/wix/2.24.0.win32.xml
> downloads required files, extracts them, applies transformations if
> requested,
> repacks, etc until finally a .msi is produced.
>
> It is currently capable of packaging z
On 08/09/11 09:45, Kean Johnston wrote:
If there is consent amongst the team and this is available, I can set up
the gtk.org pages for this.
There isn't consent. Some people are against the notion of having GTK+
be a "shared component" due to two main concerns (both addressable):
1. The myriad
On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 11:30:36 +0100, Emmanuele Bassi wrote:
On 2011-09-08 at 12:09, dieterv wrote:
- a place to store the built binaries and GTK+ bundle
> used to be http://ftp.gnome.org/pub/GNOME/binaries/win32/
linked to from http://www.gtk.org/download/win32.php
> the newer binari
On 08/09/11 11:39, Alberto Ruiz wrote:
That's a really bad idea for several reasons. First, we don't have the
resources to test ABI compatibility on windows, there has been cases
where some versions have crashed windows apps.
You mean app X uses GTK+ version A and version B is on the system = B
(Missed 'reply-all)
-Original Message-
From: dieterv [mailto:diet...@optionexplicit.be]
Sent: den 8 september 2011 12:48
To: Anders Broman
Subject: RE: Fwd: Plans for GTK+ Bundles for win32 and win64?
> On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 08:34:41 +0200, Anders Broman wrote:
>
>
On 8 September 2011 11:39, Alberto Ruiz wrote:
> Third, and the most important. Windows has no package manager. You should
> not delegate on users the responsibility of making sure that a working copy
> of GTK is installed. This is annoying enough with Java.
>
> A .zip bundle (and maybe some facil
On 09/08/2011 09:34 AM, Anders Broman wrote:
> Hi,
> Has the provision of binary bundles for Windows 32 bit and 64 bit been
> discontinued?
Others have already replied about the situation with the official binary
bundle, but here's an alternative.
There's also the option to go with cross-compilin
2011/9/8 Martyn Russell
>
> only allow downloading of separate packages. What I wished we had years ago
> when I was developing on Windows was an executable which installed GTK+ on
> the system for all apps (so I didn't have to package gtk+ inside my own
> project).
>
That's a really bad idea for
On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 12:09:55 +0200, dieterv wrote:
For GTK+ 3 and future releases: nothing has been set in stone, I'm
open to whatever consensus is reached, whether it'll be:
- continuing with Tor's build scripts like I did above for 2.24.X
- build script for a mingw-get-able repository
- OBS
- s
On 2011-09-08 at 12:09, dieterv wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 10:54:16 +0100, Emmanuele Bassi wrote:
> >On 2011-09-08 at 10:46, dieterv wrote:
> >>But I won't be doing this on github anymore (I've used up all the
> >>space I'm
> >>allowed to use), so it will move to my domain (optionexplicit.be)
> >>
On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 12:09:55PM +0200, dieterv wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 10:54:16 +0100, Emmanuele Bassi wrote:
> >can you explain what you require in terms of infrastructure?
>
> For the continuing maintenance of GTK+ 2.24.X only (binaries that
> are supposed to be completely compatible with
On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 10:54:16 +0100, Emmanuele Bassi wrote:
On 2011-09-08 at 10:46, dieterv wrote:
But I won't be doing this on github anymore (I've used up all the
space I'm
allowed to use), so it will move to my domain (optionexplicit.be)
whenever
the next release is built (even switched provide
On 2011-09-08 at 10:46, dieterv wrote:
> But I won't be doing this on github anymore (I've used up all the
> space I'm
> allowed to use), so it will move to my domain (optionexplicit.be)
> whenever
> the next release is built (even switched provider recently to be
> able to do this).
can you expla
On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 08:34:41 +0200, Anders Broman wrote:
Hi, Has the provision of binary bundles for Windows 32 bit and 64 bit
been
discontinued?
Yes, Tor (maintainer of the Windows binaries and GTK+ bundle) has
stepped down some time ago:
http://tml-blog.blogspot.com/2011/03/gtk-on-windows-i
On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 10:15:48 +0200, Kean Johnston wrote:
Dieter has been speaking with the gtk developers on IRC, and has
been
Would it be inappripriate to ask that that type of discussion happens
on the mailing list? Unless IRC logs are stored, they are ephemeral,
can't be searched or referred
On 2011-09-08 at 10:15, Kean Johnston wrote:
> >Dieter has been speaking with the gtk developers on IRC, and has been
> Would it be inappripriate to ask that that type of discussion
> happens on the mailing list?
the discussion on specific issues is happening on Bugzilla, where it
belongs; if some
If there is consent amongst the team and this is available, I can set up
the gtk.org pages for this.
There isn't consent. Some people are against the notion of having GTK+ be a
"shared component" due to two main concerns (both addressable):
1. The myriad issues surrounding the choice of CRT to
On 08/09/11 07:53, Kean Johnston wrote:
On 9/8/2011 8:34 AM, Anders Broman wrote:
Hi,
Has the provision of binary bundles for Windows 32 bit and 64 bit been
discontinued?
I can't speak for the devs but I am putting together a full bundle for
both win32 and win64, including all of the dependent
Dieter has been speaking with the gtk developers on IRC, and has been
Would it be inappripriate to ask that that type of discussion happens on
the mailing list? Unless IRC logs are stored, they are ephemeral, can't be
searched or referred back to at a later date etc, and only have visibility
to
On 2011-09-08 at 08:34, Anders Broman wrote:
> A couple of weeks ago Dieter Verfaillie offered to provide bundles
> for at least win32 [1] sadly there was no response from the core
> team.
Dieter has been speaking with the gtk developers on IRC, and has been
working on making gobject-introspection
On 9/8/2011 8:34 AM, Anders Broman wrote:
Hi,
Has the provision of binary bundles for Windows 32 bit and 64 bit been
discontinued?
I can't speak for the devs but I am putting together a full bundle for both
win32 and win64, including all of the dependent libraries. It's not quite
bleeding edge,
Hi,
Has the provision of binary bundles for Windows 32 bit and 64 bit been
discontinued?
If so it would be nice if that was indicated on the download page. In
the Wireshark project we are heavily dependent on the bundles to provide
the Windows version and as its a truly cross platform applicati
55 matches
Mail list logo
