Re: Putting the 'Mono debate' back on the rails

["Vincent Untz" <vuntz gnome org>]

Hi Mike,

On Wed, July 26, 2006 17:35, Mike Kestner wrote:
> I think I've come up with a package division that would be acceptable
> from a stability standpoint for us and still satisfy this "no desktop
> libs" requirement people seem to be dogmatically enforcing.
>
> We could split gtk-sharp into two packages:
>
> gtk-sharp-2.10.0 would keep glib-sharp, pango-sharp, atk-sharp,
> gdk-sharp, gtk-sharp, glade-sharp, and gtkdotnet.  I would propose this
> altered package for inclusion in the Bindings release set.

(I don't know what's in gtkdotnet, but I suppose it's stuff to make it
easier to use gtk+)

> gnome-sharp-2.16.0 would get gnome-vfs-sharp, gnome-sharp, art-sharp,
> rsvg-sharp, vte-sharp, gconf-sharp, and gtkhtml-sharp.  I would propose
> this package for inclusion in the Desktop release set.
>
> The division should satisfy all the rules.  There is no rule against a
> platform binding living in the Desktop release set.

This looks like it would work. gnome-vfs-sharp, gnome-sharp and
gconf-sharp could go in the bindings suite too, but this would imply
either creating a third package or moving them in gtk-sharp-2.10.0.

Thanks for working on this!

Vincent

-- 
Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés.