[Setup-tool-hackers] Re: Shipping Vera with 2.4

[Michael Meeks <michael ximian com>]

On Thu, 2003-02-27 at 05:38, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> As a tangent, IMO many of our current end-user-impacting issues are
> going to require working outside of GNOME in order to address
> them. There are many issues about hardware, system configuration,

	Will many of these issues *require* not working with other vendors? cf.
the ximian-setup-tools - "pinch the icons and pointlessly re-write it in
based on an inferior model" job.

	What is it about eg. GUI system tools, that require working outside of
Gnome ? yes - it's given that setup tools are system specific, and
vendor/version dependent - but sharing core code inside a sensible and
flexible structure can never be a bad thing - surely ?

	As for making GNOME into an entire operating system - there's a straw
man if ever one saw one. Simply looking for sensible areas of
re-applicability for various technologies is great: glib has a use
outside GNOME - so does gtk+, so does ORBit2.

	How does eg. having standardized GUI tools across distributions with a
sane structure make GNOME an "operating system" ?

	One of the things that amazes me about D/BUS is that - having been
patronizingly lectured extensively in the past about how "a string is an
API" - it seems that D/BUS is essentially a "send a string" transport.
Is there really no formal contract specification language ? and/or
suggestions for and/or descriptions of such ? I couldn't find such a
thing in the documentation. You're going to need IDL - hey, you could
even compile that IDL to some typesafe stubs / skels !

	Regards,

		Michael.

-- 
 mmeeks@gnu.org  <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot

_______________________________________________
setup-tool-hackers maillist  -  setup-tool-hackers@lists.ximian.com
http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/setup-tool-hackers