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

Re: why do we still ship (gtk1) xmms, when we have bmp



On Sun, 2006-06-18 at 09:39 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Ville Skyttä wrote:
>
> bmp has libbmp which is api compatible with libxmms and I beleave
> (but I am in no way sure) even abi)

libbmp <-> libxmms needs to be taken into account when linking or
dlopening in dependent apps, and those apps need to be prepared for
that.

> the plugin interface
> is not ABI but is API compatible, so doing a recompile is all that it
> should take.

Hardly.  #include <xmms/*.h> is very commonly found in xmms plugins (all
of them?) and bmp-devel doesn't provide that.  Also the vast majority of
xmms plugins have direct gtk1 dependencies of their own which needs to
change or it makes the whole effort kind of pointless.  The plugin
install dirs are different too, as are xmms-config vs pkg-config bmp
invocations.  It may be that these issues would be easy to fix/port for
gtk2/bmp, but a rebuild alone after changing build dependencies doesn't
magically accomplish that.

> > gtk1 dependency chain is a lot smaller
> > than gtk2 which may matter eg. in "pure" KDE setups.
> They will need this anyway for system-config-xxxx, or openoffice or
> firefox.

Note "pure" KDE setups.  system-config-xxx (not necessarily needed),
openoffice (-> koffice) or firefox (-> konqueror) don't qualify there.
Anyway, this issue is mostly of academic interest and IMO would not
qualify as a blocker against dropping xmms if all other issues would be
resolved.

> I was hoping
> that having a good replacement for xmms could sooner or later lead do
> really dropping gtk+.

I share that hope, but I don't think the replacements are ready yet.


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