RE: Proposed: Evolution (and associated libs)

On Wed, 7 Jan 2004, Jon Kåre Hellan wrote:

> > 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

Well I think to gray vertical icon bar used in the 1.4 and earlier ver-
sions of evolution may be usefull too - although it's currently not used
by any apps except evolution that I know of. But the fileselector in MS
office use[sd] it, and so does the KDE file selector.

> enough to merit a separate library. And the names clash horribly with
> current gtk+.

Yes, that was a mistake probably...

> 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.
> Regards
> Jon Kåre

*ugh*. Copy/paste libraries are _ugly_. libegg is a mess to keep up with
for a lot of people, which is _exactly_ what I was referring to in my
email... plus you get code duplication, which sucks for both disk space
and especially memory usage...


Chipzz AKA
Jan Van Buggenhout

                 UNIX isn't dead - It just smells funny
                           Chipzz ULYSSIS Org

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