Re: What is GNOME?

Havoc Pennington <> 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

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]