Re: gtk-engines photographed eating children
- From: Andrew Johnson <ajgenius ajgenius us>
- To: Jeff Waugh <jdub perkypants org>
- Cc: GNOME Desktop Hackers <desktop-devel-list gnome org>
- Subject: Re: gtk-engines photographed eating children
- Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 13:10:00 -0500
Maybe I am just confused here but as for maintaining in one big module,
how does this waste our time? How could we put them back into individual
modules. You never had them all broken out into their own individual
modules, most are in multiple locations to begin with, g-t, g-t-e,
gtk-engines, various sf sites, novell/ximian artwork etc. If you want to
completely ditch all engines from gnome modules and drop gtk-engines
binary entirely GO FOR IT. Thats how things should be, that doesn't
waste our time in consolodating them and maintaing the unmaintained in a
We easily provided --disable-engine options to disable any engine from
the module. Use them. If you had to break out other engines before it
shouldn't make a difference now. configure and make with an individual
engine, package result into individual packages.
And I would rather Redmond and Metal were packaged individually for
complete consistancy sake as well. gtk-engines should be effectively a
virtual meta package which depends on all the engines, not actually
provides them itself.
But I am still slightly confused here are you saying that you are
basically going to ignore the problem, by continuing to version those
engines in sync with gnome, not the actual engine release? Why then
bring it up at all?
I have no problem with you continuing to provide the engines seperately
since that is how I feel it should have always been. I do have a problem
with versioning non-gnome modules according to gnome release numbers and
ignoring their individual version releases, for no apperent reason
except that a gnome module depends on them(and, somewhat foolishly in my
opinion, included versions of some of them at one point). If you are
breaking out the engines into seperate modules, then you should version
them according to their own seperate versions to begin with.
Maybe I am still missing something here.....
On Tue, 2005-01-25 at 04:26 +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> <quote who="Andrew Johnson">
> > 1) Well if you want to view gtk-engines as a theme package, then we have
> > three, gtk-engines, gnome-themes, and gnome-themes-extras.
> Only two of which are shipped in the Desktop release.
> > Truth be known I don't want gtk-engines distributed as a binary package AT
> > ALL long term. I would like the module to maintain those engines which
> > don't have maintanence elsewhere, but I would still want those engines
> > packaged individually. According to their own version number. And gnome
> > modules that need individual engines, would DEPEND on those individual
> > engines.
> > And it doesn't solve the problem. Again I say. ...
> Okay, so now you guys have integrated all these things into the one module,
> reducing the version number in the process, can you split them all back out
> again like we (mostly) had it before? gtk-engines and the original versions
> of the other themes (industrial, smooth, thinice, etc) were very clearly and
> separately versioned until this happened. :-)
> For now, I'm going to ship gtk-engines packages that include only metal and
> redmond (given that pixbuf has moved into GTK+ itself), so this all ends up
> being an unfortunate waste of your time updating and maintaining the themes
> in one big module.
> - Jeff
] [Thread Prev