Re: Putting the 'Mono debate' back on the rails
- From: Alex Graveley <alex beatniksoftware com>
- To: Mike Kestner <mkestner novell com>
- Cc: Vincent Untz <vuntz gnome org>, 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 09:38:09 -0700
This sounds great, and will help Gtk# t be used by many more people!
Sorry to add confusion, but how does this help the Tomboy discussion?
I'm using gnome-sharp and gconf-sharp. And hopefully the panel APIs in
the future (there is a crasher bug currently, so I'm using a local copy).
Would we add gnome-sharp as a soft dependency if Tomboy is included,
similar to e.g. libsoup for Evolution?
Mike Kestner wrote:
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
] [Thread Prev