Re: Proposal: NetworkManager for GNOME 2.18.

[Dan Williams <dcbw redhat com>]

On Tue, 2006-11-28 at 11:13 -0500, Robert Love wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-11-22 at 21:00 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote:
> 
> > So, several people suggested that having separate packages would be
> > useful. I guess it's also useful for testing reasons and to send a clear
> > message that NetworkManager is not GNOME-specific. And also it'll be
> > easier to make new releases for GNOME releases. Things like that.
> > 
> > Is there any reason the NM hackers would prefer to keep only one
> > tarball?
> 
> Yah, it is much easier to keep both in the same tarball since (a) it is
> one CVS repository and (b) it is a single build tree.  We'd have to make
> changes upstream to go to two tarballs.
> 
> Right now you can compile the daemon without the applet (e.g., for
> KNetworkManager users) but not the applet without the daemon.  Although
> they are conceptually and technically separate, the tree is not set up
> that way.
> 
> And I am not all of NM; Dan should weigh in.  I CC'ed him in case he is
> not on this list.

Right, it's doable to separate the applet from the daemon in the
sources, but would take a bit of work.  They share some code (though
it's libraries) and so the majority of the work would be getting a good
split between the two by getting NM to install the correct stuff in the
right place.  That really just means making sure that
nm-utils.c/nm-utils.h is available to both, or folding that into the
libnm-util shared library, which should be done anyway for sanity's
sake.

If it's a priority, it can certainly be done.

Dan