Re: Plans for gnome-vfs replacement

On Ter, 2006-09-19 at 09:19 +0200, Alexander Larsson wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-09-18 at 18:47 -0300, Johan Dahlin wrote:
> > It might be worth mentioning the advantages & disadvantages of including
> > this directly in glib (as in cvs module/tarball) instead of separating it.
> > 
> > I'm all for including it in glib itself, but others might disagree,
> > especially if it's going to be a big (eg, larger than gobject itself).
> The advantage of shipping it inside glib would be that its "easier to
> build", as you don't need to build multiple modules. However, I think
> this is a false "easy", as the vfs part will have extensive weird
> dependencies on things like samba and neon. This means that it gets very
> complicated to build glib if you also want a full vfs.

  Maybe the way to go would be to have the base VFS core library plus a
standard file:// module in glib, but put any extra URI handling modules
in another package higher in the stack, installing VFS plugins?

Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro
<gjc inescporto pt> <gustavo users sourceforge net>
The universe is always one step beyond logic.

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]