Re: Is GNOME 2 dead ?

[Sander Vesik <Sander Vesik sun com>]

On 29 Aug 2001, Rodrigo Moya wrote:

> On Wed, 2001-08-29 at 16:41, Sander Vesik wrote:
> > On 29 Aug 2001, Rodrigo Moya wrote:
> > 
> > > >   b) gnome_config_ isn't a config system, it's a .ini file parser.
> > > >      not a particular evil or harmful thing. I wouldn't add it 
> > > >      today, but porting all our stuff away from gnome_config_ 
> > > >      is not going to happen for GNOME 2.
> > > >
> > > that would be really a pity. As I've said other times, I think we should
> > > force people to use bonobo-conf
> > > 
> > > cheers
> > > 
> > 
> > Thous shalt eat nothing but red meat.
> >  
> > I don't thing that 'forcing' idea would work.
> > 
> well, I don't mean putting a gun in their head and say: "port to
> bonobo-conf/GConf or I'll shoot".
> In the same way, app developers are "forced" to drop imlib and use
> gdk-pixbuf, also they're "half-forced" to use GObject instead of
> GtkObject (half-forced because you can still use GtkObject in GNOME 2),
> they're "forced" to drop m4 macros and use pkg-config, they're "forced"
> to rename all their libraries to be able to install GNOME 1 and GNOME 2
> versions of their libraries, and change all the headers installation
> directories, etc, etc.
> 

Encouraged to p[ort away from gnome_config?

> So, what I mean is: "here's the new super-cool configuration system for
> GNOME, please use it, and drop your use of gnome_config as soon as you
> can". And to help this, I would rename gnome_config to gnome_ini_file
> (didn't I say that already? :-). If people want still to use
> gnome_config, porting for them would just mean a
> s/gnome_config/gnome_ini_file
> 

Yes, but that still leaves them with the 'should I use gconf or should I
use bonobo-config' question, which this whole discussion is about. 

> cheers
> -- 
> Rodrigo Moya <rodrigo gnome-db org> - <rodrigo ximian com>
> http://www.gnome-db.org/ - http://www.ximian.com/
> 

	Sander

I haven't been vampired. You've been Weatherwaxed.