RE: Proposed: Evolution (and associated libs)

On Wed, 2004-01-07 at 04:15, Chipzz wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Jan 2004, JP Rosevear wrote:
> > From: JP Rosevear <jpr ximian com>
> > Subject: RE: Proposed: Evolution (and associated libs)
> >
> > On Tue, 2004-01-06 at 06:32, hellan acm org wrote:
> > > If Evolution goes in, gal should be polled into the evolution source
> > > tree. That way, we avoid making gal a part of the platform, and we
> > > make sure that other apps don't start depending on gal.
> >
> > This has always been our intention.  Radek has code in his tree to yank
> > the gal dependency from gtkhtml already.  The main trickiness in
> > evolution is pulling in the gal a11y stuff, but it shouldn't be too bad.
> You can't just delete a library - packages that link to it, while still
> being able to use the old version of the library, can't benefit from the
> improvements and bugfixes to an internal version of gal.

I'm not suggesting that gal be deleted. I'm urging that it not be
included in the platform. gal has never been a platform library.

When you include a library in the platform, you make guarantees about
stability and continued availability. Historically, gal has been very
unstable, so it's not suitable for the platform. Besides, only the
gtk_combo_ widgets seem to be of general interest, and those are not
enough to merit a separate library. And the names clash horribly with
current gtk+.

Non-core apps can kepp using gal as they please. Core apps which want to
use gal widgets should their own copy of gal, just like libegg is used. 


Jon Kåre

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