Re: [Gnome-print] Re: GnomeFont state of affairs
- From: Miguel de Icaza <miguel helixcode com>
- To: Havoc Pennington <hp redhat com>
- Cc: Lauris Kaplinski <lauris kaplinski com>, gnome-devel-list gnome org, gnome-print helixcode com, otaylor redhat com, liam holoweb net
- Subject: Re: [Gnome-print] Re: GnomeFont state of affairs
- Date: 16 Jun 2000 10:52:50 -0400
>>>>> "Havoc" == Havoc Pennington <email@example.com> writes:
> Lauris Kaplinski <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> Now my own reasoning for separate Gnome font API is following:
>> Gnome has some specific needs, which are not covered by
>> low-level API - such as font installing, font sharing in
>> workgroups, font matching between different output devices & so
> Can you please try to have only a glib/pango dependency? I see
> no reason you need a GNOME dependency here.
> If it has a GNOME dependency, people will have to reimplement a
> generally-useful solution. Most Linux distributions won't be
> able to adopt a GNOME-specific solution for installing fonts,
> for example.
GNOME will be everywhere, Havoc. That is the whole point of this
project. So there is really no problem in a single part of GNOME
depending on GNOME itself.
I think we need parity of goals here. My goal is to make GNOME
succeed, to make it ubiquitous, and to make it the best desktop
environment in the world. So I am doing everything I can to make that
There's no middle road here: either give up on GNOME or let's push
this platform as far as we can.
> Probably shouldn't call it GnomeFont either, perhaps GFont with
> a gfont_ prefix for functions, similar to GConf.
Why would you want to do this?
] [Thread Prev