Re: A proposal for Midnight Commander


> > Glib1 is a no option on my system and on many other people's system
> > either because the majority for now seem to have switched to GNOME2 or
> > GTK2 already and do not intend to use glib1 anymore - regardless of the
> > fact that it co-exists. The idea itself is wrong.
> I also prefer to use current versions of all software.  On the other hand,
> Glib doesn't promise stability of API in the long term.  I realize that
> it's a problem, but I don't consider it a major problem, based on my
> experience so far.

There is a promise that we will never break the compatibility.  A
function in say glib 75 might become deprecated, but if you stick to the
stable version, there is a community contract to keep the stability from
the Gnome folks

> I understand your feelings, but I'd rather go with a utility library
> maintained by someone else, ideally with standard stable API.

I agree completely with Pavel: the more code you reuse from someone
else, the more you cross-benefit that community, and they benefit you.  
Less lines of code to maintain, more time to work on fun things.

> I accept your argument that specifically GNU Midnight Commander should not
> have too many dependencies because it can be used as a recovery tool.
> It's just that the weight of this argument is not as significant as it
> used to be.  The most widespread media for recovery tools is now a CD, not
> a floppy disk.

Also, static glib is a requirement at *build time*, not a requirement at

> I'm not saying I'm doing enough.  Maybe I'm doing 20% of what should be
> done.  But I know that if we reduce requirements on the quality, the code
> will become mess once again.  Neither am I saying that my handling of the
> situation is correct.  I'm just trying to do what I can.

Btw, I really appreciate your work here Pavel.


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