Re: [G2R] Re: libwnck status & gnome-core

[Michael Meeks <michael ximian com>]

Hi Havoc,

On Fri, 2002-01-18 at 19:14, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> No, libwnck has no compat guarantees. It is AFAIK like GtkHTML2

	GtkHML2 has AFAIR made some commitments towards API stability, as
opposed to commitments towards API instability ;-)

> I am probably going to package it separately, because it simplifies
> package maintenance, and avoids a procman->gnome-core dependency.

	By including them, I mean including copies in both packages that
staticly link to the resulting binaries and install no headers.

> I don't think putting it in gnome-core really affects whether it's
> used, if we still install headers, which we would need to do for
> procman.

	Which is why I would suggest not installing headers.

> I don't consider it a huge problem if people use it, as long as they
> understand its status and are not expecting it to be a fixed
> API/ABI. (As I said I actually want to encourage people to fool around
> with application-based or other funky desktop navigation gizmos.)
> Thus the -D requirement so you are forced to read the little #error
> before you get much code written.

	Hmm; I'm still unhappy - but hey - it seems everyone wants the panel to
depend on an unstable API that "my cool gizmo" will cause people to
break everything ;-) so whatever - go for it !

> Sure I don't have a problem with that. This should at least happen
> when we make tarballs, traditionally we haven't bumped soname on each
> CVS commit however.

	I'm more interested that people building from CVS know that the thing
has changed in some not altogether apparent way and get told to update
it - ie. configure bumps instead of libwnck.1037.56.34 :-)

	Anyhow - there we go.

		Michael.

-- 
 mmeeks gnu org  <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot