On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 03:47:42PM +0200, Piñeiro wrote: > On 04/29/2012 07:14 AM, Trevor Saunders wrote: > >> b) About stop to using plugins: some people will not like adding a new > >> dependency to their projects (this could be irrelevant if the final > >> solution is add that call on ATK, as randomly suggested on the hackfest) > > I'm not sure I follow this idea of adding calls in atk. If atk-bridge > > stops being a gtk plugin that is dynamically loaded then either people > > need to link directly to some new library, libatk needs to link to that > > library, or atk needs to include that code in itself. > "atk needs to include that code in itself" is a better phrasing of my > poorly written "add that call on ATK". Anyway, you listed some of the > options we were talking about on the hackfest: ok > > > >> d) We didn't debated how all this changes would affect GTK2 apps. > >> Because the fact is that there are apps still not ported. > > Well, can't distributions just continue to ship the current > > libatk-adaptor for them, and assuming we don't change the dbus protocol > > I think everything should just keep working. > > The issue here is "I think". We need to be sure that we don't break things. true, someone should test this, but something breaking when nothing changes seems somewhat unlikely. Trev
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature