Re: GAL vs gnome-2.0

On Thu, 2001-09-20 at 11:04, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> Larry Ewing <lewing ximian com> writes:
> > 
> > I think you completely missed the point here.  It is precisely because
> > the current stable gtk+ is so poor with respect to i18n that gal has a
> > huge number of gross hacks trying to address such issues.  The stable
> > platform has moved so slowly that we end up falling all over ourselves
> > trying to work around it.
> > 
> Let me be clear, I have _no_ objection to GAL. Workarounds to address
> platform deficiencies are _fine_. My point has nothing to do with
> whether or not GAL has gross hacks, and I'm not blaming GAL for having
> them.

My point was you can't have it both ways.  You can't blame gal for not
caring about i18n at the same time you say it is good that it has a
bunch of i18n workarounds.  That bothered me. I was not addressing the
acceptance issue.  I'd be happy to go into more detail on that, but I
doubt it would be productive.  I know you are frustrated about delays


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