Re: My vision of gnome-libs (was Re: GNOME 2.0 meeting summary)

[George <jirka 5z com>]

On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 01:50:44AM -0800, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> > > Why is requiring a special define better than requiring linking
> > > against libcompat? They sound pretty close to me. In fact, we could
> > > set up pkgconfig to have a --enable-compat option which links against
> > > the compat library and sets the compat define.
> > 
> > Because if libgnome required gnome-config, everything would have to link
> > against libcompat, that's why.
> 
> What I am saying is that all libgnome and libgnomeui stuff should be
> moved over to GConf. gnome-libs should not use gnome-config
> internally, because unless the system-wide settings are und GConf, we
> miss the point of GConf.

Yes that's great, but you can't use GConf for parsing desktop files for
example.  It shouldn't be used for settings, but that is not all it's uses in
gnome-libs.  Also since parsing old config files will actually be quite
paramount for easy user transition, it should still be used by applications
to read old config files, and I think that this should be without the
-DINCLUDE_DEPRECATED_STUFF define since it could be a perfectly clean port of
an application that should still read old configuration.  So if gnome-config
is in libcompat then everything links to libcompat, because for example
gnome-ditem require gnome-config and no that can't be moved over to GConf.

George

-- 
George <jirka 5z com>
   She had lost the art of conversation, 
   but not, unfortunately, the power of speech.
                       -- George Bernard Shaw