Re: more gnome 2 proposal

[Havoc Pennington <hp redhat com>]

Hi,

I think Maciej has covered this issue very well, there was one point
I wanted to add:

Alex Graveley <alex ximian com> writes:
> > Empirically, gnome-libs has been a huge disaster, while lots of small
> > separately-maintained modules such as ORBit and libxml and gnome-vfs
> > and gdk-pixbuf have done relatively well. In my view the problem with
> > gnome-libs is that it has no clear statement of purpose or function,
> > and no person doing full-time or sufficient-time work on it. It's just
> > a place where random people have dumped random stuff. One way to fix
> > the mess is to create individual modules with clear purpose, clear
> > function, and clear babysitters.
> 
> 
> And libgnome-2 in your proposal is different from gnome-libs how?

We are proposing that libgnome-2 be defined as "features for
integration with the desktop environment." Random other stuff does not
go in there.

Havoc