Thu Jun 17 00:56:00 GMT 2004
Gerrit P. Haase wrote:
>>It's such things that makes some people think GLib is a GNOME
>>or graphical library and should be avoided at all.
> I agree. There are some overlappings though. But since there are
> already some of the core libraries of the GNOME desktop in /usr we
> should just stay with it.
I support the /opt/gnome2/ (or whatever) idea for gnome libs and apps.
However, I wouldn't cry -- and would probably support -- the idea of
NON-gnome libs, which are currently not yet part of cygwin, but which
gnome uses, to live in /usr. Like glib, audiofile, etc.
OTOH, gtk+, being a windowing library, could go either way IMO. If it
goes in /opt/gnome2/, then later some genius could provide gtk+win which
could live in /opt/gnome2-win/ and use MSW windowing+cygwin(*) instead
of X+cygwin. (I assume that the folks behind this gnome-push are
thinking X-based, right?) OTO-Other-H, gtk+ != gnome, and there are
plenty of non-gnome apps that use plain-old-gtk; this mitigates against
Good thing I'm not in charge of these decisions, or nothing would get
(*) note that MSW-windowing+cygwin is *different* from native MSW gtk,
as used by Tor Lilqvist's native port of gimp. It's like the fact that
there are/were THREE distinct builds of XEmacs on windows:
native MSW XEmacs -- used native windows libs for GUI and runtime
cygwin-X XEmacs -- used cygwin-X for GUI, and cygwin runtime
cygwin-MSW XEmacs -- used native libs for GUI, but cygwin runtime
Note that the XEmacs currently distributed as part of the cygwin package
is BOTH a build#2 and a build#3, simultaneously.
More information about the Cygwin-apps