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

On Wed, 2006-07-26 at 11:25 -0500, Mike Kestner wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-07-26 at 18:21 +0200, Murray Cumming 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.
> > 
> > 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.
> glade-sharp is an optional build.  We're not forcing anyone to put it on
> their systems.

These optional builds don't help much, unless people are using gentoo
(or other source-based distros).

If the binary package was built with glade support then distros are
unlikely to change their binary package in the future to remove the
glade support. That would be an ABI break.

Murray Cumming
murrayc murrayc com

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