Re: Clearlooks and GNOME 2.12

[Thomas Wood <thos gnome org>]

On 20 Jul 2005, at 11:38 pm, James Henstridge wrote:

> On 20/07/05 19:17, Thomas Wood wrote:
>
> > On 19 Jul 2005, at 10:26 pm, Danilo Šegan wrote:
> >
> > > Today at 22:42, Richard Stellingwerff wrote:
> > >
> > > > Personally, I'd really prefer to keep distributing standalone
> > > > packages, since it allows me to do more frequent releases.
> > >
> > > Nobody would object if gtk-engines got more frequent releases. :)
> > In fact, I'm planning a release soon, since I've just closed quite a
> > number of outstanding bugs.
> >
> > Incidentally, this will be the 5th gtk-engines release in 7 months,
> > compared to no releases in the 2 years previously.
>
>
> Why are you including modules that are maintained externally anyway?

I think the original plan was to eventually maintain clearlooks in 
gtk-engines. Clearlooks was still quite experimental at the time, so 
the idea was to have a stable version in gtk-engines, and allow the 
developers to continue experimenting elsewhere. Now that clearlooks is 
more stable, perhaps it would be possible for the developers to have 
cvs access to gtk-engines.


> If you find bugs in clearlooks, are you fixing them in gtk-engines or
> are you feeding them to the official maintainers?  If you are fixing
> them locally, how are you resolving conflicts when merging later on?
>
> It seems like it would remove all these synchronisation problems if
> gtk-engines only contained engines that were maintained within
> gtk-engines.  Including a theme whose engine is not in gtk-engines 
> isn't
> really a bad thing.


gtk-engines is already required by gnome-themes, so rather than adding 
yet another dependancy, I think including Clearlooks in gtk-engines 
saves hassle for both users, developers and distributors.


-Thomas