[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Bug-gnubg] Did I just mess up?

From: Joern Thyssen
Subject: Re: [Bug-gnubg] Did I just mess up?
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 12:36:10 +0000
User-agent: Mutt/1.4.1i

On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 02:05:33PM +0200, Holger wrote
> At 09:49 29.07.2003 +0200, Øystein O Johansen wrote:
> >> But on the other hand: in <glib/gutils.h> both
> >> g_path_get_dirname/g_path_get_basename are defined. Why not use these? Or
> >> are there really systems left without glib?
> >
> >I really didn't think about these functions for the GTK+ builds.
> >For the none gui builds, I like to keep the executable small and
> >independent of many dlls. I therefore exclude unnecesarry features
> >(unnecesarry in my opinion that is) from the no gui build. I
> >exclude png+freetype+libart+zlib, i18n, gdbm and sound. The only
> I think Joern told me once that the nogui version is also capable of 
> generating png and html reports (and the pictures therefore). With this 
> freetype, libart and zlib are also needed. I think it even plays sounds and 
> the player record features are also usable without gtk+. 

Correct, the nogui version can do almost the same the GUI. Only a very
few things are no implemented in the CLI interface (such as the
temperature map, which we could do with ascii graphics instead).

Perhaps we should allow the use of glib in the non-GTK part of gnubg, at
the expense of less portability. I'm slightly in favour of it. If it
turns out to be a problem or if someone wants to build a gnubg with a
very small footprint we may extract the relevant parts of glib (assuming
we use a small subset of glib). Currently, we can only allow the use of
glib 1.2 functions.

What's the opinion from the other developers?


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]