[Gtk-sharp-list] GTK# 3.0 Assistance

[Andrés G. Aragoneses]

Ah, if gir2gapi would remove the need of Perl then I agree with Mike
it should not be worked on, because it would get deprecated anyway.

I don't know enough about F# to make a judgement, but seems more
adequate than Ruby, if you were to choose something additional to
msbuild/xbuild.

On 23 August 2011 20:03, Gabe McArthur <madeonamac at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm fine with getting rid of the perl and porting it all to .net. Any chance
> I could  use F# for some of the heavy lifting? I don't want to be a dick
> (warning: about to be a dick) but the less time I spent working through
> templating and asset zipping and calling external tools from msbuild, the
> happier I (and hopefully everyone else) will be. I'm extremely comfortable
> in ruby, but I can get everything to run from  1 msbuild command, all under
> .net.
>
> -Gabe McArthur
> On Aug 23, 2011, at 11:27 AM, Mike Kestner <mkestner at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The only perl in master is the parser, which is not run at build time and is
> not worth converting to .net regexes.  I'd rather pursue the gir2gapi XML
> converters than spend any more time on the parser than the occasional bugfix
> at this point.
> There was a perl script in older versions to do cdecl mangling, but that's
> gone in master.
> I agree on avoiding the ruby dep.  If we are going to xbuild/msbuild, it's
> to simplify the windows build and general portability.  Adding ruby won't
> help there.
> Mike
>
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 12:14 PM, Andres G. Aragoneses <knocte at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> IMHO the main point about migrating to MSBuild is preventing the hassle
>> of depending on "unixy" tools in Windows. If you add a dependency to
>> Ruby, you're introducing yet another problem (even if you're talking
>> about IronRuby).
>>
>> Also FYI there is some step in the GTK# build system that is done in
>> Perl. I would vote to translate that to C# as first step. (This would
>> sound risky to some people, but if the code translated to C# generates
>> the same output as the Perl does currently, that's the best test to
>> certify there are no main bugs in the migration.)
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> On 08/22/2011 04:32 PM, Gabe McArthur wrote:
>> > Sorry for not being clear. I'd love to take on the build stuff, learning
>> > as I go about what's in the codebase. How open would you be to replacing
>> > minor things that may be too verbose or time consuming to do with
>> > msbuild in something like ruby? I used to be a build engineer at MS, and
>> > there are few things I learned to enjoy less than maintain msbuild
>> > files.
>> >
>> > -Gabe McArthur
>> >
>> > On Aug 22, 2011, at 7:07 AM, Mike Kestner <mkestner at gmail.com
>> > <mailto:mkestner at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi Gabe,
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 8:15 PM, Gabe Mc
>> >> <<mailto:madeonamac at gmail.com>madeonamac at gmail. com
>> >> <mailto:madeonamac at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>     Hey,
>> >>
>> >>     I'm looking to contribute to mono in some way, and I thought that I
>> >>     could start with GTK#. I wanted to dig in and see what's involved
>> >> and
>> >>     possibly make some fixes to make the system compatible with
>> >> downstream
>> >>     tools (like mono-addins, which currently does not build with
>> >> GTK#3.0).
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Not sure what you mean by making the system compatible. If you mean
>> >> providing backwards compatibility in 3.0 to 2.x, I doubt that's going
>> >> to be possible. Too much changed and was removed. Size negotiation,
>> >> drawing, fundamental concepts which aren't going to map well.
>> >>
>> >> If you mean you want to start porting other libraries to work with
>> >> 3.0, that may be premature, since we haven't even released a preview
>> >> yet. You could probably start the ports on branches or a github fork
>> >> though to be merged back later, and report and help any issues the
>> >> ports expose in gtk-sharp master.
>> >>
>> >>     I was also interested in making general build improvements, like
>> >>     possibly replacing Makefiles with xbuild project files. Any
>> >>     thoughts/criticisms of this idea? Am I stepping on toes?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> The glue is being reduced, but it's an obstacle to switching to xbuild
>> >> projects. We would also need MSBuild tasks to do things like fixup and
>> >> generation. Those are things I've wanted to do for a while, to make it
>> >> easier to build on windows without cygwin/msys. It's not a trivial
>> >> task though. If you wanted to take a stab, I'd be happy to try to
>> >> answer questions as they arise.
>> >>
>> >> Mike
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Gtk-sharp-list maillist  -  Gtk-sharp-list at lists.ximian.com
>> > http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/gtk-sharp-list
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gtk-sharp-list maillist  -  Gtk-sharp-list at lists.ximian.com
>> http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/gtk-sharp-list
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gtk-sharp-list maillist  -  Gtk-sharp-list at lists.ximian.com
> http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/gtk-sharp-list
>