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

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.

Murray Cumming
murrayc murrayc com

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