Re: Hal version for GNOME 2.17

[Toby Smithe <toby smithe gmail com>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Tomasz Torcz wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 19, 2006 at 04:50:42PM +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:
>> On Tue, 2006-09-19 at 16:12 +0200, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> I just saw on this page
>>>> http://live.gnome.org/TwoPointSeventeen/ExternalDependencies
>>> that the Hal version for GNOME 2.17 is 0.5.7, yet GNOME Power Manager
>>> 2.17.1 requires Hal 0.5.8. Has the page not been updated yet?
>> Not quite. gnome-power-manager *requires* 0.5.6, works better with
>> 0.5.7, but if you provide 0.5.8 then lots of cool extra stuff starts
>> happening. New stuff includes cpu frequency scaling support and better
>> LCD integration.
>>
>> I think the decision was to base 2.17 on 0.5.8[.x] as this is *vastly*
>> better than 0.5.7 but this is my own impression only.
>
>   Please, don't inflate GNOME dependences on non-technical merit. If
> some program can be compiled with library version X, it's NOT OK to
> depend on library version X+1 or X+2.
>   G-P-M is good example: its real dependency is HAL 0.5.6. Requiring
> higher version is unfair to users.

New users don't care about stability. They want features. To be honest I
also prefer features over stability, and, if HAL 0.5.8 is stable enough
by that time and works on most systems, I see no reason to not bump the
dependency. But then again, what about those who then complain when it
doesn't work? I can definitely see your point, but what size is that
minority of users for whom it may not work? I know nothing of HAL, but
this is my perception of the community.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFEEkNv7fgPJvITk4RAgTbAKDTz6+YOXiaVqhE/t4tYLO9xbhoJwCgqOQd
x/7zcNmFs2nisiQGx/NjD2k=
=+E5V
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----