Re: [gtk-list] Re: Proposal: Split glib into a separate module

[Tim Janik <timj gimp org>]

On Thu, 12 Feb 1998, Shawn T. Amundson wrote:

> 
> I see very little reason not to do this.
> 
> I think glib, when split off, should go straight to version 1.0.1 and
> all major changes to the library will be "officially" halted for the 
> 1.0 series.

nope, there are certain things that might still need to be implemented
in glib (think of things similar to g_strtod for example).
also i'll need to do a few minor modifications to GScanner somewhen
(before gtk+ 1.0 for sure. and at least until then gtk-list should stay
the place where glib related discussions take place.

i'm not opposing to the split here (though it might be a bit early and
should maybe be done along with the gtk+ 1.0 release, but i don't really
mind about that), but i would like to see modifications/additions to it
to be numberd in the 0.99.x range until gtk+ is ready for 1.0 release
also.

> One of the problems is that it would be very nice to keep the 
> commit/diff info on the glib files, which as I understand it, 
> is going to be almost impossible to do when we move it into 
> another module. ;-(
> 
> -Shawn
> 
> On Wed, 11 Feb 1998, Manish Singh wrote:
> 
> > You have to admit it: glib rocks! And it's usefulness is not limited to
> > GTK apps. So it would be nice to be able to distribute it separately,
> > because you don't necessarily need the whole GTK baggage around to use
> > apps the require glib.
> > 
> > This is, of course, more of a convenience issue than a functionality
> > issue. Still, it would be nice to have glib separate so gtk (and as a
> > result, X) is not a dependency on apps that use glib. (Or at least a
> > separate CVS module)
> > 
> > This is quite trivial to do, since the autoconf stuff is separate anyway.
> > 
> > Comments are welcome.
> > 
> > -Yosh
> > 
> 
> Senior Systems Administrator	Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
> amundson@CompleteIS.com		http://www.CompleteIS.com/~amundson
> 

---
ciaoTJ