Re: Clearlooks and GNOME 2.12

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.


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