I can take a look at the gobject-introspection work. Bugzilla links? On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 10:57 AM, Ignacio Casal Quinteiro <nacho.resa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 4:51 PM, Jasper St. Pierre <jstpierre@xxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: >> >> 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 >> bummer. > > > Well the current status is quite good compared with how it was a few years > ago. > The main problems are still: > 1. that we have lots of downstream patches still on msys2, even though I > spent quite a lot of time pushing them upstream. > 2. building anything out of git is a nightmare, you need a tarball or > everything gets in your way > 3. gobject-introspection could get quite a bit of love for windows. There > are though some patches in bugzilla that are waiting some review. > 4. jhbuild would require some serious work. > > Cheers. > > >> >> >> On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 9:15 AM, Emmanuele Bassi <ebassi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > Hi; >> > >> > 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 out of date, and lack many of the bug fixes that went into GTK.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: >> >>> >> >>> https://msys2.github.io/ >> >> >> >> 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 >> > infrastructure. >> > >> > Ciao, >> > Emmanuele. >> > >> > -- >> > https://www.bassi.io >> > [@] ebassi [@gmail.com] >> > _______________________________________________ >> > gtk-devel-list mailing list >> > gtk-devel-list@xxxxxxxxx >> > https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list >> >> >> >> -- >> Jasper >> _______________________________________________ >> gtk-list mailing list >> gtk-list@xxxxxxxxx >> https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-list > > > > > -- > Ignacio Casal Quinteiro -- Jasper _______________________________________________ gtk-list mailing list gtk-list@xxxxxxxxx https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-list
