On 22/06/2007, at 23:09, Dan McMahill wrote:

> Julio M. Merino Vidal wrote:
>> On 22/06/2007, at 18:58, Dan McMahill wrote:
>>> Julio M. Merino Vidal wrote:
>>>> Would you object if it was moved to an independent gtk-demo  
>>>> package?  (If it proves to cut down the build times significantly?)
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> --Julio M. Merino Vidal <jmerino@ac.upc.edu>
>>>
>>> not my top choice but I can live with that approach.  Can it be  
>>> setup to automatically be updated when gtk is updated?
>> Err... and what does update mean in the pkgsrc context?  I mean,  
>> which approach are you following?
>> We could make this gtk-demo package depend on a explicit version  
>> of gtk (modulo the revisions).  This way you'd be forced to keep  
>> it in sync with its corresponding gtk package.
>
> You're right, I wasn't quite clear about what I meant.
>
> I was thinking of a makefile.common so when you changed the gtk  
> source version in pkgsrc, the gtk-demo package would automatically  
> be pointing at the new gtk sources.  Basically I wanted to avoid  
> people updating what version of gtk we have in pkgsrc and not  
> updating what version of gtk-demo we have in pkgsrc.
>

Oh yes, that'd be the idea.  Hopefully, creating the gtk-demo package  
will be a matter of automatically adjusting (by means of some  
subst.mk magic) the link paths in its Makefile, just as we do now  
for, e.g. gst-plugins-* or gnome-vfs2-*, and sharing as most as  
possible in our Makefiles with gtk2.

-- 
Julio M. Merino Vidal <jmmv84@gmail.com>