Re: libcanberra as an external dependency

[Olav Vitters <olav bkor dhs org>]

On Thu, Aug 07, 2008 at 01:24:55PM -0400, Joe Marcus Clarke wrote:
> Bastien Nocera wrote:
>> We're trying to kill esound completely, and having the release-team look
>> in the other direction when we're adding those new dependencies is the
>> easiest way for us to move in that direction.
>>
>> In any cases, it's the distributor's decision which sound server to use,
>> but I wouldn't want to be the one wasting (a small amount of) time
>> writing an esound backend for libcanberra.
>
> So what's the point of even having dependency lists?  This seems like
> broken release engineering to me.  We're going to bless one sound
> server, but no one actually use it.  Instead, introduce support for
> another.  Maybe that way people will see the light, and switch on their
> own.  That seems like a pretty passive-aggressive approach by the
> release team.  If you want to move something better, do it.  You did it
> for gvfs and gtkprint.

http://live.gnome.org/TwoPointTwentythree/Platform

What is not clear about esound being deprecated?

another list:

http://live.gnome.org/TwoPointThirteen/Platform

"The following modules are heading towards planned deprecation. They
will continue to be supported and API/ABI stable throughout the GNOME
2.x series, but we do not recommend using them in new applications
unless you require functionality that has not already been moved
elsewhere. Check the ProjectRidley page for more details about upcoming
changes to our platform. "

How clear should a deprecation be? IMO it clearly states that although
we won't break esd, we recommend that new apps switch to something else
when it is available. This is like gvfs, we're moving away from it.

-- 
Regards,
Olav