Re: Fifth-toe list (was Re: [Usability]thoughts on ui-review for fifth toe)

[Sander Vesik <Sander Vesik Sun COM>]

On 11 Jul 2002, Luis Villa wrote:

> On Thu, 2002-07-11 at 13:07, Sander Vesik wrote:
> > On 11 Jul 2002, Luis Villa wrote:
> > 
> > > > Utility:
> > > > --------
> > > > acme 
> > > > file-roller 
> > > > 
> > 
> > gcalctool
> > 	a much better gnome calculator (well, in all ways really
> > 	once the slideruler easter-egg gets ported)
> 
> Would be nice to have in fifth toe for now and in gnome desktop in the
> future, with one caveat for desktop: it needs a 'simple' mode- something
> that looks like a hand calculator and not a gigantic programmable one.
> 
> > gconf-editor
> > 	unless we expect people to use gconftool
> 
> Good call, though it's defacto in desktop already as (to the best of my
> knowledge) /every/ distributor of gnome is including it, except our very
> own tarballs.
> 

then this probably boils down to - do we bypass the 5th toe stage of movig
into the core or include it in the 5th toe first so it gets translated,
documented and even more tested first?

> > 
> > > > ------------------------------
> > > > GNOME2 -- Developer Carpet Bag 
> > > > ------------------------------
> > > > glade
> > > > anjuta2
> > > > memprof
> > > > ghex
> > > > 
> > 

there is also David, not sure what the porting status is ATM

> > I think the main question here really is 'do we want language bindings to
> > be in here or no'. Also, devhelp (or a gnome2 port of similar)? Or will we
> > just use yelp for it all?
> 
> If we have language bindings, I don't see why we shouldn't ship them
> here.
> 

no - there are essentially three scenarios:

	* always only officialy support the main, C binding, other
	  bindings live in their own release

	* include complete and stable bindings in 

	* do nothing about language bindings

Just like for gnome office, it is quite reasonable to have a separately
released component that encapsulates language bindings and tools for
developing code on and for the gnome platform. 

> > > > ggv
> > > > gnucash
> > > > evolution
> > 
> > not being actively ported and not likely to make it? Or has the situation
> > changed recently? if we add evolution we have to add libgtkhtml1 in to
> > this list. 
> 
> I assume you meant this to refer only to gnucash and evo; dunno about
> gnucash but it will be a long while before evo is ready. 
> 

actually, just evo, and we seem to be on agreement on it. I have no idea
of gnucach-es status.

> -- 
> Luis Villa <louie ximian com>
> 

	Sander

	This is the place where all
	the junkies go	
	where time gets fast
	but everything gets slow