On Sun, 23 Jul 2006, Eugenia Loli-Queru wrote: > Miguel wrote: "I would be interested in understanding what the issues of > non-splitting are, from the GNOME point of view." > > For one, if in the future Gnome would like to provide an embedded version > (there was some talk about it already), it would be easier to pick and > choose components as seen fit. In a 64 MB firmware you can't fit > everything, usually... Of course, I don't think that this means that you > need 3 different tarballs instead of 1. As long the selective functionality > is present in your current tarball (via an autoconf option), I don't see why > it should be physically split in different tarballs. But some form of > seperation must exist as the rest of the Gnome is very modular in its > nature.
This can be done today. Look at: http://svn.myrealbox.com/viewcvs/trunk/gtk-sharp/configure.in.in?rev=56950&view=auto and notice how the build *won't* fail if optional stuff isn't there. > Lastly, I believe that having a modular GTK# is better for GTK# itself. > Think about it: a third party embedded company wants to use it, but it This can be done today! > Please refer to the email I sent yesterday. You can still offer a migration > path to your existing apps and maintain it as long as you see fit or needed. > Not all is lost. It's already possible to link just to Gtk+. -- Ben _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
