Re: [Gnome-print] Re: GnomeFont state of affairs
- From: Wolfgang Sourdeau <wolfgang ultim net>
- To: lauris kaplinski com
- Cc: wolfgang ultim net, sean middleditch iname com,miguel helixcode com, gnome-devel-list gnome org,gnome-print helixcode com
- Subject: Re: [Gnome-print] Re: GnomeFont state of affairs
- Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 21:52:29 -0400
>>>>> In article
>>>>> Lauris Kaplinski <email@example.com> writes:
Lauris> What you suggest is, that we stop that, and let big
Lauris> vendors to take that job themselves - updating their libc
Lauris> or maintaining Gnome distributions for their systems Take
Lauris> some gnome (gtk, glib, libunicode, whatever...)
Lauris> functionality and add
Lauris> that to glibc From that point either:
Lauris> - gnome runs only on glibc (compatible) systems
Lauris> - we have to create glue code for other libc-s
Lauris> In the latter case we have not won much, as we still have
Lauris> bunch of small libraries to maintain. The former case
Lauris> needs political decision.
What are those glue libraries you are talking about, there isn't one I
am aware of?
Also, considering we are using such libraries, where would there be a
problem to make a big libgnome relying on those glue libraries rather
than the many smaller libraries?
Technically I don't see any problem with that. All the directory
structures could be marged together; ending with a bigger one in which
the Makefile would link the resulting sublibraries together.
The platform dependecies can be taken care of with a couple of
#ifdef's and configure/libtool tricks.
But all in all, I don't see where the real problem is, except a little
bit more work of our part (which we are doing anyway).
] [Thread Prev