Re: Putting the 'Mono debate' back on the rails
- From: Murray Cumming <murrayc murrayc com>
- To: Mike Kestner <mkestner novell com>
- Cc: Jeff Waugh <jdub perkypants org>, GNOME Desktop Hackers <desktop-devel-list gnome org>
- Subject: Re: Putting the 'Mono debate' back on the rails
- Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 18:21:26 +0200
On Wed, 2006-07-26 at 10:35 -0500, Mike Kestner wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-07-25 at 09:33 -0600, Elijah Newren wrote:
> > > We bind six libraries that fall in the desktop set currently. I cannot
> > > split out three of them because the APIs are included in gnome-sharp.dll
> > > currently, and to split them out would break API compat for my users.
> > Are you saying that parallel installation of libraries is impossible
> > in the mono world? I don't see how this has to break API
> > compatibility for your current users.
> Parallel-installation is a compatibility break.
> 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.
That seems a lot nicer.
I am, however, slightly concerned that this would force people to depend
on libglade even when we have a libglade replacement in GTK+. The C, C
++, Python, Java, and Perl users will be able to rewrite their
applications so that they don't need libglade on the system.
> 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.
murrayc murrayc com
] [Thread Prev