Re: xscreensaver capplet.

[Havoc Pennington <hp redhat com>]

Richard Hestilow <hestilow ximian com> writes:
> On 23 Jul 2001 17:04:22 -0400, Jonathan Blandford wrote:
> > Currently we seem to have three different screensaver capplets -- the
> > old one in stable, Jamie's that ships with xscreensaver, and the new one
> > in gnome-control-center.  There are a couple issues here that need
> > sorting out, if possible.
> > 
> > 1) We want to have just one capplet with GNOME 2.  My inclination is to
> >    use the one in gnome-control-center, though I'm a little
> >    uncomfortable with the fact it depends on ETable.  It's sort of
> >    unfortunate that a major component of GNOME depends on an unstable
> >    library.  This needs resolving by GNOME 2.0.
> 
> Presumably, gal will be at a stable version by Gnome 2. After all, Evo
> is gearing down for 1.0, and I can't see it depending on an unstable
> gal.
> 

We need to have some public discussion before adding packages to the
GNOME platform. Can we get a post from the GAL maintainers committing
to maintain GAL in sync with GNOME releases, keep the API stable,
etc., etc., and outlining exactly what's in GAL and that kind of
thing?

My concern about ETable is that it is a HUGE hunk of code, which we
suddenly have to stabilize for GNOME releases. I don't see any real
reason it's needed for that capplet - CList can be hacked to have the
check buttons, we can send you instructions, and GtkTreeView will do
this in 2.0. At the moment ETable is a big chunk of code that's not in
the set of things we have to think about to ship a working desktop. So
it's a big step to make. I'm not saying it's bad, but needs thinking
through.

I think it's essential to keep the core GNOME desktop and all
dependencies sufficiently small that it's manageable. Already GNOME
1.4 is very much on the brink of being unmanageable for the 4 or 5 of
us at Red Hat to release in stable form, because of the sheer size of
the code. Anyhow, a concern. There are no doubt other factors to
consider, I'm just trying to explain a possible issue.

Gman has been pestering me to repost my revised RFP proposal so we can
get a process for "thinking through," and I really need to do so, I am
a big loser for not doing it.

Even without that though, some informal discussion would be good.
Hopefully it can be productive and unflamacious. ;-)

Havoc