[Nautilus-list] Re: Should Nautilus packages and configure script be changed to require EOG?

[Darin Adler <darin bentspoon com>]

On 2/4/02 7:23 AM, "Michael Meeks" <michael ximian com> wrote:

> On Sun, 2002-02-03 at 07:08, Havoc Pennington wrote:
>> Nautilus should probably require EOG if we go this route.
> 
> I don't think that makes a whole lot of sense personally,
> requiring EOG as part of the platform ( which we already do ) seems
> to make more sense.

OK, I get that's your opinion, but what are your arguments, guys? I think
that an exchange of arguments is more valuable than an exchange of opinions.
Here are the arguments I know of pro and con.

Pro:
    Without the EOG dependency, someone who installs Nautilus but not all
the other "core desktop packages" won't get an image viewer, and the message
that Nautilus displays is unlikely help them understand what's wrong. Adding
an EOG dependency to configure.in will make it impossible to have a Nautilus
that doesn't view images, reducing the burden on Bugzilla.

Con:
    Adding an EOG dependency to configure.in will not guarantee that
packagers will put that dependency in the Nautilus package file.
    Creating a "false" EOG dependency will make it even harder to build
Nautilus.
    If Nautilus depends on EOG, then we can't create a dependency where EOG
depends on Nautilus, which could be a problem if we decide to use any of the
NautilusView features in the EOG component -- zooming is the one that comes
to mind.

The "Pro" argument weighs more heavily on me because I have to read all the
incoming bug reports. That may be why it's a more compelling argument for me
than for Michael.

Perhaps another kind of solution would be a change to the message Nautilus
displays when it can't find a viewer?

I'd appreciate some more help figuring this out.

    -- Darin