Re: What is GNOME?

[Maciej Stachowiak <mjs eazel com>]

Havoc Pennington <hp@redhat.com> writes:

> 
> gnomehack is non-free, which opens a whole can of worms. In general, I
> don't think we want non-free projects to count. (Though in the nethack
> case, my personal feeling is that it can slide due to nethack's long
> tradition, there's no way we can make that kind of exception in
> general.)
> 

I think we should have a hard requirement of DFSG/OSD-free for
packages, making exceptions is going to make it hard to draw a clear
line that excludes truly proprietary code in the future.

> 
> BTW, my personal feeling is that C++, Python, and maybe Perl bindings
> are much more important than the "obscure" language bindings. But of
> course, we'll get flameage for drawing that line. And flameage for
> picking Gtk-- over SDP, etc. I promise not to flame about Inti, but
> that doesn't get us far given the number of bindings. ;-)

We should include all (reasonable) langauge bindings - if they're part
of the development platform, it only makes sense. I think Gtk-- is the
only project that even wants to be the official GNOME C++ binding.
 
> > gtk+
> > gtop
> > imlib
> 
> What's the plan when imlib is "axed"? And also, imlib 1 is unmaintained.
> 
> > libghttp
> 
> Unmaintained.
> 
> > libglade
> > libgtop
> > libPropList
> 
> libPropList isn't used by anything AFAIK. At least not by anything
> important...
> 
> > libxml
> > libxml2
> 
> libxml2 wasn't in the release, or shouldn't have been.

Either way it's not actually a separate project from libxml.

 - Maciej