Re: libglade frustration
- From: David Nečas (Yeti) <yeti physics muni cz>
- To: gtk-app-devel-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: libglade frustration
- Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 08:15:13 +0100
On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 05:55:36AM +0000, tomas tuxteam de wrote:
On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 12:00:37AM +0100, David Nečas (Yeti) wrote:
On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 02:44:21PM -0800, wallace owen l-3com com wrote:
libglade developers do not produce any binary packages.
Their product does come with examples.
Requiring that the examples have to be included in full in
the text of the manual instead of in a compilable form as
standalone files is silly.
You took it back to the point. I think metaphors don't help much here.
The question is whether usage examples belong to the documentation or
not. As we see, this question is debatable. Personally, I'd side clearly
with the "yes" side.
Definitely, but I'd put only snippets and smaller examples
to the manual itself. I hope we agree it makes no sense to
put the source of gtk-demo-like programs to the manual. So
we have the following possibilities:
1. Convince all OS vendors to stop making binary packages
and libglade devs to make these packages instead, with
2. Convince all OS vendors to include code samples in the
3. Add a note to a prominent place in the docs that the
source code comes with examples, and let people grab the
real thing instead of what OS vendors decide to
] [Thread Prev