On Wed, 2006-07-26 at 10:35 -0500, Mike Kestner wrote: > On Tue, 2006-07-25 at 09:33 -0600, Elijah Newren wrote: > > > > We bind six libraries that fall in the desktop set currently. I cannot > > > split out three of them because the APIs are included in gnome-sharp.dll > > > currently, and to split them out would break API compat for my users. > > > > Are you saying that parallel installation of libraries is impossible > > in the mono world? I don't see how this has to break API > > compatibility for your current users. > > Parallel-installation is a compatibility break. > > I think I've come up with a package division that would be acceptable > from a stability standpoint for us and still satisfy this "no desktop > libs" requirement people seem to be dogmatically enforcing. > > We could split gtk-sharp into two packages: > > gtk-sharp-2.10.0 would keep glib-sharp, pango-sharp, atk-sharp, > gdk-sharp, gtk-sharp, glade-sharp, and gtkdotnet. I would propose this > altered package for inclusion in the Bindings release set.
That seems a lot nicer. I am, however, slightly concerned that this would force people to depend on libglade even when we have a libglade replacement in GTK+. The C, C ++, Python, Java, and Perl users will be able to rewrite their applications so that they don't need libglade on the system. > gnome-sharp-2.16.0 would get gnome-vfs-sharp, gnome-sharp, art-sharp, > rsvg-sharp, vte-sharp, gconf-sharp, and gtkhtml-sharp. I would propose > this package for inclusion in the Desktop release set. > > The division should satisfy all the rules. There is no rule against a > platform binding living in the Desktop release set. -- Murray Cumming [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.murrayc.com www.openismus.com _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
