RE: [Dillo-dev]which version does this patch file patch
-----Original Message----- From: dillo-dev-admin@lists.auriga.wearlab.de [mailto:dillo-dev-admin@lists.auriga.wearlab.de] On Behalf Of Sebastian Geerken Sent: Monday, October 04, 2004 10:58 AM To: dillo-dev@lists.auriga.wearlab.de Subject: Re: [Dillo-dev]which version does this patch file patch
Hi,
On Mon, Oct 04, yuzenghui wrote:
hello everybody, I found a patch file in http://www.dillo.org/misc_files/gtk2.diff.gz. which version of dillo can use this patch? And does this patch upgrade dw to gtk2?
This patch can be (at least) applied to the version from October 2003, but (most likely) not with the current version of dillo. This patch is furthermore rather early development.
The plans to port dillo to Gtk2 have been given up (and there does not seem to be interest in this at all), so you should not expect it to be continued.
*Headdesk* So that's why it won't compile with glib2 and gtk2. It always ended up linking against libmodule 1.2, libglib 1.2, etc., if it compiled at all, because gtk+ apparently links against those, regardless of what you tell it in gtk-config. Oh, well, no Dillo on my thin box. If you have to install two versions of a library, you've done something wrong. The other stuff on the box wants the later libraries (glib2, gtk2). I'm not a C programmer, otherwise I'd fix it and send it to you. ljl
On Mon, Oct 04, 2004 at 11:37:33AM -0700, Linda J. Laubenheimer wrote:
*Headdesk* So that's why it won't compile with glib2 and gtk2. It always ended up linking against libmodule 1.2, libglib 1.2, etc.,
Yes. Despite the names, gtk+-1 and gtk+-2 are different libraries. You can't build against one and link against the other, any more than you can build a KDE app and expect it to link against GNOME.
Oh, well, no Dillo on my thin box.
Why not? Gtk+-2 is designed to work alongside gtk+-1 with no problems. I have had them both installed for a couple of years, running dillo and other gtk+-1 and gtk+-2 applications. It's all worked out of the box with no problems.
If you have to install two versions of a library, you've done something wrong.
I agree, but that doesn't apply here. Gtk+-1 and gtk+-2 are *different* libraries. Since no application built against one of them will even look at the other there's no problem. Version hell only happens when an application can link against more than one library on your system and runs the risk of picking the wrong one. The design of Gtk+-2 ensures that this won't happen.
I'm not a C programmer, otherwise I'd fix it and send it to you.
Believe me, there's nothing to fix. Just install both gtk+-1 and gtk+-2 and live happily ever after. I did! Jeremy
on Tue, Oct 05, 2004 at 09:18:27AM +0100, Jeremy Henty wrote:
On Mon, Oct 04, 2004 at 11:37:33AM -0700, Linda J. Laubenheimer wrote:
Oh, well, no Dillo on my thin box.
Why not? Gtk+-2 is designed to work alongside gtk+-1 with no problems. I have had them both installed for a couple of years, running dillo and other gtk+-1 and gtk+-2 applications. It's all worked out of the box with no problems.
Probably because installing GTK1 (and all the associated other bits that it needs, like glib and the legacy X fonts) would take too much disk space. On a modern system you probably aren't going to have any other GTK1-based applications, and it's hard to justify installing those extra things just for Dillo. In the Familiar project, we are still using Dillo 0.6.7, because that's the only version that I could find with working GTK2 patches. Some of our target machines have only 16MB of memory, and we'd have to remove a significant amount of other functionality to make space for a GTK1-based Dillo. p.
On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 04:54:28PM +0100, Phil Blundell wrote:
on Tue, Oct 05, 2004 at 09:18:27AM +0100, Jeremy Henty wrote:
On Mon, Oct 04, 2004 at 11:37:33AM -0700, Linda J. Laubenheimer wrote:
Oh, well, no Dillo on my thin box.
Why not? Gtk+-2 is designed to work alongside gtk+-1 with no problems. I have had them both installed for a couple of years, running dillo and other gtk+-1 and gtk+-2 applications. It's all worked out of the box with no problems.
Probably because installing GTK1 (and all the associated other bits that it needs, like glib and the legacy X fonts) would take too much disk space. On a modern system you probably aren't going to have any other GTK1-based applications, and it's hard to justify installing those extra things just for Dillo.
Sometimes I wonder why PDAs and handhelds went with GTK2. For instance, in Slackware: PACKAGE NAME: gtk+-1.2.10-i386-3 COMPRESSED PACKAGE SIZE: 1534 K UNCOMPRESSED PACKAGE SIZE: 4420 K PACKAGE NAME: gtk+2-2.4.3-i486-1 COMPRESSED PACKAGE SIZE: 5946 K UNCOMPRESSED PACKAGE SIZE: 26350 K That's 26MB instead of 4MB! And GTK2 is much slower than GTK1 which on low-CPU-power is a problem.
In the Familiar project, we are still using Dillo 0.6.7, because that's the only version that I could find with working GTK2 patches. Some of our target machines have only 16MB of memory, and we'd have to remove a significant amount of other functionality to make space for a GTK1-based Dillo.
The good news, is that after we go FLTK, a statically linked dillo binary could be made. -- Cheers Jorge.-
on Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 02:29:25PM -0400, Jorge Arellano Cid wrote:
Sometimes I wonder why PDAs and handhelds went with GTK2
Two main reasons: firstly that it provides numerous new widgets and other features not found in GTK1 (anti-aliased text, multi-display support, UTF-8, etc) and secondly that the vast majority of interesting applications are written to use GTK2 nowadays. Virtually nobody is developing software for GTK1 anymore.
That's 26MB instead of 4MB!
I've no idea what Slackware put in their packages, but GTK2 certainly doesn't take 26MB of disk space.
And GTK2 is much slower than GTK1 which on low-CPU-power is a problem.
True enough. I don't personally have any interest in anything slower than about 200 MIPS, and GTK2 runs at a perfectly respectable speed on that kind of hardware. But I can see that this would be a concern for people working on really slow machines. p.
on Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 02:29:25PM -0400, Jorge Arellano Cid wrote:
The good news, is that after we go FLTK, a statically linked dillo binary could be made.
Sounds interesting. I wonder how large this would be. How much does a statically-linked copy of FLTK add to the executable size? Does fltk use Xft, or are the legacy X fonts still required? p.
On Thu, Oct 07, 2004 at 10:00:15AM +0100, Phil Blundell wrote:
on Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 02:29:25PM -0400, Jorge Arellano Cid wrote:
The good news, is that after we go FLTK, a statically linked dillo binary could be made.
Sounds interesting. I wonder how large this would be. How much does a statically-linked copy of FLTK add to the executable size?
Very small, it's designed so only the used parts are linked in. A satically linked Hello world is 130KB in my machine (x86).
Does fltk use Xft, or are the legacy X fonts still required?
It can use Xft (compile time option) or the legacy X fonts. -- Cheers Jorge.-
Phil Blundell <pb@...> writes:
In the Familiar project, we are still using Dillo 0.6.7, because that's the only version that I could find with working GTK2 patches.
I'm very interrested to get this version but I don't find it ? Do you know where can I find a dillo source/gtk2 version to download please ? Thanks. Vincent.
In article <DC4D721BDF5B754A8228EC6A184E746F8235C5@sj-exstore.wyse.com>, Linda J. Laubenheimer <llaubenheimer@wyse.com> writes
-----Original Message----- From: dillo-dev-admin@lists.auriga.wearlab.de [mailto:dillo-dev-admin@lists.auriga.wearlab.de] On Behalf Of Sebastian Geerken Sent: Monday, October 04, 2004 10:58 AM To: dillo-dev@lists.auriga.wearlab.de Subject: Re: [Dillo-dev]which version does this patch file patch *Headdesk* So that's why it won't compile with glib2 and gtk2. It always ended up linking against libmodule 1.2, libglib 1.2, etc., if it compiled at all, because gtk+ apparently links against those, regardless of what you tell it in gtk-config.
Oh, well, no Dillo on my thin box. If you have to install two versions of a library, you've done something wrong. The other stuff on the box wants the later libraries (glib2, gtk2). I'm not a C programmer, otherwise I'd fix it and send it to you.
ljl
It might be worthwhile your looking back on the lists for why gtk-2 wasn't pursued - my recollection was that the initial binaries were both reported to be larger and very significantly slower. Many of us run dillo on systems with significant memory and cpu constraints (eg in my case playstation2 or old dx4-100 laptops), constraints you will be familiar with (thinks, perhaps you should _downsize to gtk1.2 :-))) Bob -- robert w hall
participants (6)
-
Jeremy Henty -
Jorge Arellano Cid -
Linda J. Laubenheimer -
Phil Blundell -
robert w hall -
Vincent