This sounds great, and will help Gtk# t be used by many more people! Sorry to add confusion, but how does this help the Tomboy discussion? I'm using gnome-sharp and gconf-sharp. And hopefully the panel APIs in the future (there is a crasher bug currently, so I'm using a local copy).
Would we add gnome-sharp as a soft dependency if Tomboy is included, similar to e.g. libsoup for Evolution? -Alex Mike Kestner wrote: > On Wed, 2006-07-26 at 17:47 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote: > >>> 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. >> (I don't know what's in gtkdotnet, but I suppose it's stuff to make it >> easier to use gtk+) > > Stuff to allow drawing on Gdk windows with the .Net System.Drawing API. > Any future additions will be of a similar flavor. Helper classes for > access to .Net APIs for which we don't want to put an additional > dependency on gtk-sharp.dll. > >>> The division should satisfy all the rules. There is no rule against a >>> platform binding living in the Desktop release set. >> This looks like it would work. gnome-vfs-sharp, gnome-sharp and >> gconf-sharp could go in the bindings suite too, but this would imply >> either creating a third package or moving them in gtk-sharp-2.10.0. > > Putting all the gnome stuff in one gnome-sharp package has a certain > marketability/sense to it. And gnome-sharp can't go in platform. It's > the source of all this angst, because it has the dreaded print and panel > APIs. > _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
