[Gtkradiant] Re: GtkRadiant running on FreeBSD!

Timothee Besset gtkradiant@zerowing.idsoftware.com
Wed, 7 Aug 2002 15:26:49 +0200

I don't see what the problem is with libxml2 and Gtk. Those, along with
all the other libs (libjpeg, and maybe libpng) should be installed on the
system already. The only thing that's needed on our end is cons scripts
with appropriate `xml2-config --cflags` etc.


On Wed, 07 Aug 2002 09:20:04 -0400
"Lyndon Griffin" <lyndon@bsd4us.org> wrote:

> Timothee Besset writes: 
> > That's great news. A few things: 
> > 
> > - I'd be looking forward to integrate BSD build patches into the tree.
> > The best solution to get this rolling is to open a bug item on
> > bugzilla and attach the patch there. 
> > 
> > - If you are willing to produce BSD binaries for releases, then we
> > should be able to provide setups for BSD. Basically the BSD binaries
> > would come with the Linux bins in the same setup (I know some
> > adaptations are going to be needed, but the lokisetup tool was
> > designed to hold binaries for several OSes)
> <<<snip>>> 
> I actually started looking into the setup stuff last night, and notice
> that there are FreeBSD cases in there ;)  Haven't gotten far with that,
> tho. 
> Please allow me to see if there's any way to trim the patch size down. 
> It's very large, like 80k or so, even though 99% of the work was either
> adding a 
> #define FreeBSD or changing xml-config to xml2-config in a Conscript. 
> Which brings up an interesting question.  FreeBSD's ports collection,
> which allows multiple concurrent installs of GTK/Glib and others by
> installing them in different paths and keeping track of that.  A user is
> not forced to use the ports system.  My patchwork has in mind a ports
> install of GTK/Glib and xmlparser.  So err umm hmmm...  do I keep the
> work for the ports?  If the answer is no, then the size of the patch
> reduces by like 30% (the Conscripts).  But, if the answer is yes, the
> Conscripts change in an unfriendly fashion.  Don't know that much about
> cons, but I don't see any architecture-specific cases in any of the
> existing stuff, so this may not be nice.  Guess I should look into it,
> no?  Maybe I'll save the Conscript patches until this piece is resolved.
> <:)  Lyndon
> http://bsd4us.org/ 
> _______________________________________________
> Gtkradiant mailing list
> Gtkradiant@zerowing.idsoftware.com
> http://zerowing.idsoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/gtkradiant