Re: GNOME CVS: libgnomeui baddog

[Maciej Stachowiak <mjs noisehavoc org>]

On 25Nov2001 12:28PM (+0800), Malcolm Tredinnick wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 25, 2001 at 11:57:27AM +0800, R.I.P. Deaddog wrote:
> > On Sun, 25 Nov 2001, Malcolm Tredinnick wrote:
> > 
> > > > Modified files:
> > > > 	.              : ChangeLog configure.in
> > > >
> > > > Log message:
> > > > Add missing gnome-vfs-module path in CFLAGS
> > >
> > > Is this really the right way to do this? Or should libgnome-2.0.pc also
> > > have gnome-vfs-2.0 as a "Requires:"? The latter seems better to me.
> > 
> > libgnome-2.0.pc already listed gnome-vfs-2.0 as Requires; the path
> > in question belongs to gnome-vfs-module-2.0.pc .
> 
> Ah yeah ... that's what I meant. I wish I could type. :(
> 
> > Actually I have thought about adding gnome-vfs-module-2.0 as
> > libgnome-2.0.pc requirement too, but it seems that programs needing
> > libgnome-2.0 doesn't always need gnome-vfs-module-2.0 at the same
> > time. In other words, gnome-vfs-module-2.0 sounds not mandatory for
> > libgnome-2.0 .
> 
> True, now that I look closer. It's needed to build the help-vfs-module,
> which is why libgnome grabs it. I hadn't noticed that difference before.
> 
> > In this case, is there any better way to resolve it? I'm not so
> > confident of my change (other than the fact that libgnomeui compiles
> > along with gnome-vfs 1.9.3 now).
> 
> No idea. I'm hoping one of the vfs guys or George or Anders or Jonathan
> will pipe up. I'm not really criticising your patch, since it solves the
> problem, but I'm genuinely wondering if it's the neatest solution. The
> dependency trees are becoming a bit of a mess (but we don't care because
> we have pkg-config!).
> 

Is some part of libgnomeui using the gnome-vfs module API? It
shouldn't need it.

 - Maciej

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