Re: New dependency?

[Carlos Garnacho <carlosg gnome org>]

On Wed, 2006-06-07 at 14:32 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:
> On Wed, June 7, 2006 14:26, Carlos Garnacho wrote:
> > On Wed, 2006-06-07 at 11:07 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >> I think we'll reach consensus that it's okay to use it: aren't we in
> >> love with dbus now? ;-) Also, I'm a bit reluctant on imposing
> >> restrictions on our blessed dependencies/external modules: we should
> >> definitely tell their maintainers when we're not happy, but doing
> >> more might not be sensible from us.
> >>
> >> Now, what about liboobs? :-) I guess it should be included in the
> >> desktop set.
> >
> > Indeed, when I feel more confident about it's API stability, I may
> > propose it formally for the developer platform.
> 
> Any reason why it would be useful to have in the platform?

I've just seen the platform modules list, and liboobs wouldn't be so
widely used as those, so perhaps it's a bad idea, forget it :)

> 
> > BTW, g-s-t will very probably depend soon on PolicyKit (a dependency
> > recently introduced by HAL), I initially thought it wouldn't be an
> > issue, but now I'm not so sure... should I have notified this too? :)
> 
> HAL will depend on it, so IMHO it'll be okay. A notification is of course
> most welcome :-)
> 
> (Btw, you should probably send the notifications to d-d-l so people who
> know more than the release team people can object, if necessary ;-))

I did when I branched for 2.16 [1] and didn't get much feedback, so I
assumed there were no objections :)

	Regards


[1]
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2006-May/msg00025.html