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

[Jürg Billeter <j bitron ch>]

On Mit, 2006-07-26 at 18:32 +0200, Murray Cumming wrote:
> 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.

gtk-sharp has a separate glib-sharp-2.0.pc pkg-config file, so it's
relatively easy to provide multiple binary packages from one source
package or am I missing something?