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

[Mike Kestner <mkestner novell com>]

On Wed, 2006-07-26 at 17:47 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:

> > 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+)

Stuff to allow drawing on Gdk windows with the .Net System.Drawing API.
Any future additions will be of a similar flavor.  Helper classes for
access to .Net APIs for which we don't want to put an additional
dependency on gtk-sharp.dll.

> > 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.

Putting all the gnome stuff in one gnome-sharp package has a certain
marketability/sense to it.  And gnome-sharp can't go in platform.  It's
the source of all this angst, because it has the dreaded print and panel
APIs.

-- 
Mike Kestner <mkestner novell com>