Re: gnome-libs 2.0 proposal

[jacob berkman <jacob ximian com>]

On 07 Mar 2001 14:01:27 -0500, Elliot Lee wrote:
> On 7 Mar 2001, jacob berkman wrote:
> 
> > On 07 Mar 2001 07:30:47 -0500, Elliot Lee wrote:
> > >
> > > 3. WRT branches, the HEAD vs -1-0 thing is a mere technicality. You are
> > > ultimately going to have to wind up with the new gnome-libs in HEAD,
> >
> > with this plan we get 3 toplevel modules, which changes this reasoning
> > a bit.
> 
> Hmm, I didn't gather the "3 toplevel modules" from the "3 conceptual
> pieces" idea.

the doc explicitly states that they would be 3 different cvs modules :/

> I don't think they should be split up as separate packages,
> which would seem to be the only reason to make separate modules.

this allows people to have bonobo components installed/running without X
installed.  it also allows us to have dependencies between the two
libraries.  we can also use new libraries when they become usable in the
3rd (components) module.

for example, if gtk had done this, gdk-pixbuf would be able to remain a
seperate library for 2.0.

jacob
-- 
"The people who made the Macintosh produced a miracle, but that
 doesn't mean their code was wonderful." -- Bob Cringely

_______________________________________________
gnome-hackers mailing list
gnome-hackers gnome org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-hackers