Zenity in utils - 2.4 Module List - zenity

[Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller <Uraeus linuxrising org>]

I do not if it has been covered but I do think we should ship Zenity,
but not as a separate module. It should be put into gnome-utils. The
number of smaller modules is getting a bit out of hand and for non-libs
I do not see the advantages. acme for instance should also go into
gnome-utils or control-center for instance. 

New additions is good, but I really think we should not start shipping
every little app standalone.

Christian

On Sun, 2003-03-30 at 13:56, Vlad Harchev wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2003 at 03:13:09PM +0100, Murray Cumming Comneon com wrote:
> > > From: Bill Haneman [mailto:bill haneman sun com] 
> > > There's some circular reasoning going on here that bugs me.
> > > 
> > > The question is not whether scripts are useful in general, not
> > > whether _particular_ scripts are useful, but whether a _general_
> > > scripting facility is useful.
> > 
> > I think it might be useful to a tiny minority, but not much more than via
> > any other language binding. I haven't found anything widely-useful on here:
> > http://g-scripts.sourceforge.net/
> > that isn't now part of Nautilus.
> > 
> > I'll try to stop ranting now. There's always the chance that there's lots of
> > GNOME 2.2 users who still feel the need to write Nautilus scripts.
> 
>  I think we must have something like gdialog or zenity in the gnome.
> Why:
> 
> 1) By shipping some dialog-like program, we make it standard - this means
> that 
>     a) Admins won't have to try all dialog-like stuff from freshmeat
> 	(there are 5 or so programs on freshmeat currently) and study 
> 	their homepages (to check whether the project is dead, what bugs
> 	it has, etc) in order to select a proper tool.
>     b) People writing the scripts using dialog-like programs will be able
> 	to share them with each other (it will be much difficult to share
> 	scripts if one uses e.g. zenity and other one uses gdialog).
>     c) It will really become rather polished and bug-free fast
> 2) Other parties will be able to rely upon it and will code more things in
>     scripts rather than in C code if functionality permits. This will make
>     those products much more flexible since it will greatly increase the
>     possibility to tweak such stuff (number of people who know sh is
>     by orders greater than number ones who know C/perl/python/etc AND are 
>     willing to study gtk and stuff).
>     
> Shell scripts is one of the few things that makes unix powerfull.
> 
> Of course it's a pity to have zenity commandline options to be different
> from gdialog's ones. It would be much better if its set of commandline
> options was a superset of gdialog's ones. Though gdialogs's set of options
> is rather inflexible.
> 
> > > I don't have an opinion about this particular engine, etc., only
> > > that the arguments against it seem a little self-referential.
> > 
> > That was intentional. I think that if Nautilus scripts are useful then they
> > shouldn't be scripts. I was trying to show some of the logical steps along
> > the way. 
> 
> I think that as much code as possible should be scripts.
> Emacs, gimp, source navigator and others are a proof of this concept.
-- 
Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller <Uraeus linuxrising org>