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.
My objection to Gnope is purely because it's on a separate site and there's no transparency there. I lie; the other objection is that the Gnope site makes things available that are not part of the PHP-GTK project and calls them PHP-GTK.
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.
So talk with Andrei about putting them into CVS?
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.
Who's stopping them? That whole conversation was ages ago...
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'm not in charge of what does or doesn't go into CVS. I do know I'd be wary of libgnome, personally... but that's an OS issue, is all.
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
These I'm supposed to have reviewed yesterday... they're Elizabeth's, no?
* 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?
See archives. There's a modified library in there somewhere that's wrapped as part of Gnope's distro. The code needs to be either made public or offered back to the original author, preferably both, and it should be made clear that it's a modification. (I wasn't 'having a go' at edge for that.)
- Steph