I stumbled upon a post about homebrew installing gtk2 on OSX (and gtk3). Really? Would that work with Shoes (Linux is gtk2 of course and I’ve got Shoes/Gtk2 for Windows – it’s the only Windows version of Shoes I distribute. If Gtk2 and Shoes works on OSX then I wouldn’t have learn all the Mac ‘Kit’ stuff or Objective-C. I’ve already got a Ruby version the download code working for Linux (replaces curl) and Windows so I don’t need nsurl.m
It’s not like some more #ifdef’s in the Shoes .h files is going hurt anybody and it’s easy to create another build target in the Rakefile. Getting that build target to work? Well, there is some madness ahead and I don’t really know if it will work but it worth trying because the current OSX build of the .m files raise all kinds of ‘deprecations’ and ‘don’t do that’ warning messages. Who needs that kind of nanny? And if it works, I can turn on the GTK3 variation since I’ve written that code already (with bugs, but it exists and mostly works). It’s not like Shoes OSX doesn’t already drag in a butt load of X11 libs and it runs fast enough on my low end mac mini. Or that I care that much about startup time.
You can predict where I’m headed next with Shoes 3.2. But first, I created an the OSX build via ssh step for my master build. And I changed the version number to 3.2.10. Screw the alpha/beta/release-canidate version number nonsense. That’s just useless ‘Big-Company speak’ I’m sorry fell back into that trap. Golden Masters? I didn’t go that far into the hole.
I also ‘improved’ the web page at the ‘Federales?’ tab on the top of this site. So, I’ve done my part to communicate better before I heat up the keyboard, brain cells and WTF vocabulary on Shoes/OSX/GTK2. Have I mentioned before how much the Rakefiles annoy me?
Don’t do that. It was easy enough to get it to compile and link. Execute? That depends on an OSX user will to install X11 and configure it. Not something Shoes should do. It also confuses homebrew and the fragile rakesfile to do odd things that are hard to undo.