Re: Control Center Shell and libslab

[Denis Washington <dwashington gmx net>]

Thomas Wood wrote:
> Denis Washington wrote:
>   
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > Thomas Wood and I wrote a few patches for the new control center 
> > shell(see 
> > http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnomecc-list/2006-November/msg00002.html). 
> > Because 90% of the shell's internals are in libslab, the patches mainly 
> > or only involve changes in that library. My question now is: should we 
> > do this forking of SLAB (i guess at least my patch especially is one 
> > that doesn't fit well with SLED but makes sense in the GNOME context)? 
> > I'd say it would be best if we took the current libslab code and develop 
> > it independently from the Novell SLAB; I see no other way to really 
> > adjust the shell to our needs. But that's just my opinion, comments are 
> > really welcome.
> >     
>
> I spoke to Rodrigo and Seb about this briefly on IRC. Rodrigo also
> suggested forking SLAB, but I would still like some feed back from the
> current authors about their opinion. Seb is in favour of just going
> ahead and making changes, since the code is now in GNOME cvs.
>
> I've CC'd the authors libslab for their comments. If we don't get any
> reply, I think we can assume they are not too concerned about what goes
> on in gnome cvs.
>
> With respect to your search entry patch, I think the libsexy changes are
> nice, but unfortunately libsexy isn't part of the official module set,
> so we can't definitely depend on it yet. An optional dependency might be
> possible though.
>
> -Thomas
>
>   

One thing about the libsexy issue: I looked at the Rhythmbox module and 
the developers just put libsexy in there as sub-folder for their search 
entry. Couldn't we do the same for Slab?

Denis