Joined: Nov. 2006
||Posted: June 18 2008,15:46
Since it's come up and without getting too far ahead of ourselves, maybe it's time to start staking out "turf" for core extensions so we have an idea of who wants to do what. That way we have more cooperation where possible, reduce overlap of effort, get on the same page about dependency extensions, etc.
I agree. We need for the extensions to fit together in a coherent system and not have duplicate libraries overwriting each other or being redundant in the self contained apps. My preference is to factor out things such as gtk2, graphics libraries (png,jpeg,tiff,etc.), SDL, SSL/SSH, and so on and so forth. It makes for more extensions to load, but makes for a cleaner system. Especially for those that install across the file system like the present .dsl. Not as convenient as having every extension being self-sufficient, but makes it easier to keep extensions up to date and a smaller overall footprint of the installed extensions. This would mean that the lower level libraries need to be ported or built first, and then the higher level apps later.
The exception to factoring may be ones like gtk2. We may want to keep gtk2 as standalone, not depending on a bunch of other extensions.
I will be porting the extensions I have made for DSL 3x/4x to core once it is released. May not be done overnight since as mentioned above there will be libraries that I will have to wait on such as the graphics libs. Gtk 2.12.9 (and also Felson's 2.10.9) *should* work if they are converted to the newer extension format. I will port gtk+-2.12.9, rebuilding or adding to if necessary, but I will not be offended if anyone makes the more recently released 2.12.10. Or just improves upon 2.12.9. But preferably give me a shout so there is no overlapping effort.
Juanito's smaller gtk2 extension would be good to have as well for the basic apps that do not require a full size gtk2.
I assume this is the direction we will want to go in as far as building extensions is concerned. What do yall think?