Re: [Bug-gnubg] Did I just mess up?

[Holger]

At 14:53 28.07.2003 +0000, Joern Thyssen wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 04:10:42PM +0200, Holger wrote
> > But on the other hand: in <glib/gutils.h> both
> > g_path_get_dirname/g_path_get_basename are defined. Why not use these? Or
> > are there really systems left without glib?
>
> I don't know, but the answer is probably yes. On one hand is nice to

OK, more specifically: ... any platform that we want gnubg to compile on.
The answer may still be yes. But as long as I don't see a good 
counter-example I suppose this must be rather exotic.

> ensure that gnubg compiles with any plain vanilla ANSI C compiler on a
> minimal system, but on the other hand, it would be nice to use some of
> the glib stuff, for example:

So the question arises: Do we want to support the very last system (with 
only the no-gui version), or  bear the chance that gnubg doesn't compile on 
everything that consists of silicon.
At least for the GUI version there's no need to hesitate - GTK+ relies on 
glib anyway.

Regards,

        Holger