Re: gnome-recent (plans)

Anders Carlsson wrote:

On Thu, 2002-07-04 at 05:13, Havoc Pennington wrote:
I still wonder if we shouldn't install libegg, and protect it with

I'm not sure that's a good idea:

* Many applications are just using one or two "features" from libegg.
* Installing the library means people are going to use it and depend on
it, no matter how many #defines they have to put in their code :)

Maybe we should put the AC_DISABLE_SHARED macro into libegg's configure script? This way it would only be a build time problem, rather than a runtime problem. In fact, there would be no runtime dependence on libegg (which gets round the 20-libgals problem people seem to bring up). We don't get the benefit of being able to upgrade the library to fix bugs in all apps that use it, but we don't have that with the current cut-n-paste model either.

* It also means we have to make regular releases of libegg, which is
more work for the maintainer(s).

At the same time, it is probably good to make sure that the various parts are buildable from tarballs :)

* libegg is a highly unstable module that's guaranteed to break both API
and ABI compat which means that a change in libegg could break a lot of

I think the app authors have been suitably warned :)

* Most of the things that are used regularly are probably ready to go
into gtk+ and the gnome libraries.

Which can't really happen til gtk+ 2.4 (some may be able to go into gnome 2.2). These are probably the parts of libegg that are less likely to break a lot between releases too, so could probably build against an installed static library.


Email: james daa com au              | 2003 Call for Papers out
WWW: |

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]