Re: Outdated win32 bundle
- Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 10:51:55 -0400
- From: "Jasper St. Pierre" <jstpierre@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: Outdated win32 bundle
Would it be possible for me to fund / help maintain official GNOME
Win32 bundles and an SDK? I'd love to improve Windows support of GTK+,
but I'm never sure where the status is. Last time I tried jhbuild it
failed on something early on -- I believe fontconfig, so that was a
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 9:15 AM, Emmanuele Bassi <ebassi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 11 June 2015 at 13:44, anatoly techtonik <techtonik@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 9:22 PM, Emmanuele Bassi <ebassi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> The current stance of everyone involved in the Windows backend for
>>> GLib and GTK+ is to stop advertising binary builds for Windows — as we
>>> don't do that for any other platform, and nobody sticks around long
>>> enough to keep doing that or to set up a continuous integration build
>>> for GTK.
>> Stop advertising == stop supporting?
> If I wanted to say "stop supporting", I would have said that. Not that
> we *ever* "supported" binary builds, on any platform. If you want
> commercial support, you should contract somebody.
> Currently, we advertise ad hoc Windows builds on gtk.org; those are
> out of date, and lack many of the bug fixes that went into GTK. This
> situation is confusing for application developers, and makes the
> project look bad. It also reflect badly on the great work that
> developers have been doing in order to make GTK work well on Windows.
> On top of that, we don't offer binary builds for any other platform,
> and instead rely on distributors — like Homebrew on Mac; the *BSD
> ports; or the various Linux distributions — to provide binary builds
> for them. Windows is an anomaly, mostly because there weren't
> good/usable software distributions in the past. This has now changed,
> and it's a good thing to ensure that developers on Windows get
> reliable, up to date software.
>>> Developers using the G* core platform libraries on Windows are
>>> strongly encouraged to use the MSYS2 distribution:
>> Like Git? Ship 200Mb of "additional value" on top? Just for comparison
>> Mercurial installation is 37Mb compared with 267Mb of Git. And that for
>> every GTK application?
> MSYS2 is for developers, not for end users.
> You're supposed to set up the development enviroment on *your*
> development machine(s); once you have built your application, you can
> take your binary artefacts, including the DLLs you depend on, put them
> into an installer, and let your users download the installer — which
> is exactly what you should have done in the past, even with pre-built
> DLLs. The intended change is for application developers to get
> pre-built, up to date binaries using MSYS2, instead of downloading zip
> files from gtk.org that we cannot reliably keep up to date.
> Telling your users to download your application; download DLLs from
> gtk.org; shove them into some directory; and, finally, hope for the
> best, was never a good software distribution mechanism.
>>> This will provide you with pre-built packages that are known to work
>>> and maintained. It also allows you to build your own packages on top
>>> of it, and create an installer from the result.
>> Can GTK be cross-compiled for Windows?
> Yes, it can, and it routinely is.
>>> What the GTK team would love, on the other hand, is somebody putting
>>> the effort in setting up and maintaining a continuous integration
>>> service — similar to https://build.gnome.org — for Windows builds.
>>> This way we would be able to catch build regressions after every
>>> commit, without relying on the application developers to file bugs.
>> http://www.appveyor.com/ if using closed source service is okay.
> No, it's really not — especially if it has to run on the gnome.org
> [@] ebassi [@gmail.com]
> gtk-devel-list mailing list
gtk-devel-list mailing list