Re: Re: Announcing PHP-GTK-EDGE

> Well, there's this 'edge' site, and there's the Gnope site (which as far > as I'm aware is still distributing software we can't legally > distribute), and there's Elizabeth's site (which is needed currently) > and Frank's upcoming site (which will end the need for Elizabeth's). The > only reason we need the last two is there's no good way to run PHP-GTK > snaps as part of the main php.net snaps site. All of them are present for a reason: it makes up for some deficiency or the other in the main PHP-GTK. PHP-GTK wouldn't even be half as popular as it is now if it weren't for Gnope. You have to admit; getting PHP-GTK to run on Windows wasn't that easy before Gnope. > I don't even remember GtkExtra being mentioned until last week... Not on the public list; but I've received requests for these extensions off-list for ages now. > That was because the push is supposed to be towards completing the GTK+ > wrapper, so that we can release a new version. People normally wait for > the new version to come out, unless they're developers, and then they > normally work with CVS directly. I understand that we're all supposed to be working on API completion at this time; but I can very frankly say that I'm doing the best I can. Sometimes you need motivation to work; and writing an override for a deprecated widget like GtkList (which probably isn't going to be used anyway) isn't as exciting as wrapping GtkSpell. "Work on API completion or else don't work at all" is a pretty hard-line approach IMHO. Let the extensions be in CVS; it couldn't hurt anyone. > There are real problems with having a lot of separate distributions > around. For example, we had someone last week who can't make PHP-GTK run > under x64, but I don't know if there's actually a PHP-GTK bug there that > needs resolving or not, because he was using the Gnope installer. If you > want to make extensions available, it'd be best to put them into the > project CVS so we all know what the code looks like. And if it's illegal > one way or another, you really shouldn't be distributing it anyway. Like I said, I would love to put those extensions into CVS. I just feared another, I'll be frank here: "discuss before you commit else I'll revoke your CVS" message. The "discussion" never even happens. Last time I asked for libgnome to be put into CVS: no reply; and consequently no commit. It doesn't take long to say "yes", unless of course you really don't want it to go in. I'll withdraw php-gtk-edge as soon as I have the go-ahead for syncing php-gtk-cvs with edge. The following patches are in it: * Support for Gtk+ 2.8 and 2.10 * Corrected version of GtkPlug override * The GtkSpell and GtkExtras extensions I've tested them all personally; and they work. If you trust me, you'll let me commit them. I've never made a commit to php-gtk-cvs without testing that the change works on my computer first (both on OS X and Linux). I said before, the full release can still be based on 2.6; but people out there need to be able to atleast compile with 2.8 or 2.10 if they wish to. Oh, and there's nothing "illegal" about php-gtk-edge; and I'm not aware of what's illegal about gnope either. Care to share what's that about? -- Anant