Re: Proposed external dependency: libcanberra

[Xavier Claessens <xclaesse gmail com>]

Le lundi 28 juillet 2008 à 16:08 +0200, Lennart Poettering a écrit :
> > 
> > I have a question: Is libcanberra-gtk the definitive library or is there
> > plans to move the code directly into GTK+? Or is there good reason to
> > have it outside GTK+? The API could be
> > gtk_widget_play_sound(GtkWidget *widget, uint32_t id, ...);
> 
> For now I see no reason to do this. 
> 
> It might be a good thing to do this eventually, to allow tighter
> integration of sounds with input events (i.e. instead of hooking into
> all kinds of signals via the GtkModule we could make gtk call those
> functions directly). But the question then would be how much to
> actually move into gtk. Only lc-gtk? The entire lc? The entire lc
> would mean moving a complete set of backends for the various sound
> systems into gtk. Would that be a good idea? Dunno. Just lc-gtk? Would
> that be sufficient? Also, the raw lc api is still very much visible
> through lc-gtk, since lc-gtk is not an abstraction, just a bit of glue
> code. Would it be such a good thing then to add it to gtk? also, what
> would be the real benefit of moving only lc-gtk into gtk? it's now
> shipped with lc, it would then be shipped with gtk. You'd need both
> packages anyway, so it would not exactly help on our "dependency hell
> issue", would it?
> 
> lc is still pretty new. Let's keep it outside of gtk for now. See how
> things work out and maybe merge it or parts of it later.
> 
> So, it's not a no, or a yes. But a "maybe later".

Ok thanks. Personally I don't know what's the best, I just asked to know
if there is plans about that or not. gtk_widget_foo and gdk_event_foo
seems more appropriate than ca_gtk_foo but it's a really minor
inconvenience.

Xavier.