[lazarus] FPC GNOME questions

[Andrew Johnson]

I am trying to make sure that I have as much as possible of the GNOME 
headers complete and I had a few questions.

First a basic type question :

typedef /*@abstract@*/ struct poptContext_s * poptContext;

is declared in (gnome-)popt.h. and I am assuming based on the  
/*@abstract@*/ that it is safe to declare this as

poptConext = pointer

but I wanted to make sure.

Second, in popt, two very important functions, from interface 
standpoint, are the popt print routines(poptPrintHelp, poptPrintUsage) 
but both take a PFile paramater, so based on what was said last time, I 
am assuming that declaring as a Pointer is fine for compiling reasons, 
but what about actual use? If there is no way to use the popt print 
routines I may as well not even finish the popt library, and simply 
forget about GNOME popt support.

Third, I have also ported esd(barring audiofile support and the tmp 
directory stuff, which varies between versions) and was wondering, while 
both the popt library and esd are seperate libraries, should I handle 
them as being simply additional GNOME libraries since they are primarily 
only used in conjunction with it?  For instance there are 2 versions of 
the popt headers, which are virtually identical, popt.h, and 
gnome-1.0/gnome-popt.h, both AFAIK linked against the same library, aka 
libpopt.so, so should I simply forget about the regular version(popt.h) 
and only include gnome-popt.h as an additional gnome package required by 
libgnome and libgnomeui, or should I create an additional package like 
imlib with a popt.pp and a gnomepopt.pp, which is required by the GNOME 
package. And the same for esd..

Fourth when I ported the GDKPixbuf library I  added extra modes to 
enable Xlib, gdk, gtk, and gnome support. since now there is GNOME 
support, should I break out the code, and create a GDKPixbuf package, 
with 4 seperate versions of the file, or at least two seperate version, 
one for x11, one for gtk, and move the gnome canvas funtions to an extra 
GNOME package? Or any other way so we can get the full benefits available?

Fifth, more of a side note, are there any good gnome example programs I 
can port? I found several for Gnome 2, but not any for 1. I have almost 
got the entire base GNOME set of packages complete and functional 
now(yay!), so I may as well see about adding the usual set of 
examples.(The only extra packages I haven't bothered looking into are 
gnome-db, and gtk-xhtml - which turns  out is considered deprecated; and 
the rest are coming along nicely, so I expect within a few weeks all 
major GNOME 1.x libararies, barring corba support, will be complete.)

Andrew