-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Tomasz Torcz wrote: > On Tue, Sep 19, 2006 at 04:50:42PM +0100, Richard Hughes wrote: >> On Tue, 2006-09-19 at 16:12 +0200, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote: >>> Hi, >>> I just saw on this page >>>> http://live.gnome.org/TwoPointSeventeen/ExternalDependencies >>> that the Hal version for GNOME 2.17 is 0.5.7, yet GNOME Power Manager >>> 2.17.1 requires Hal 0.5.8. Has the page not been updated yet? >> Not quite. gnome-power-manager *requires* 0.5.6, works better with >> 0.5.7, but if you provide 0.5.8 then lots of cool extra stuff starts >> happening. New stuff includes cpu frequency scaling support and better >> LCD integration. >> >> I think the decision was to base 2.17 on 0.5.8[.x] as this is *vastly* >> better than 0.5.7 but this is my own impression only. > > Please, don't inflate GNOME dependences on non-technical merit. If > some program can be compiled with library version X, it's NOT OK to > depend on library version X+1 or X+2. > G-P-M is good example: its real dependency is HAL 0.5.6. Requiring > higher version is unfair to users.
New users don't care about stability. They want features. To be honest I also prefer features over stability, and, if HAL 0.5.8 is stable enough by that time and works on most systems, I see no reason to not bump the dependency. But then again, what about those who then complain when it doesn't work? I can definitely see your point, but what size is that minority of users for whom it may not work? I know nothing of HAL, but this is my perception of the community. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFFEEkNv7fgPJvITk4RAgTbAKDTz6+YOXiaVqhE/t4tYLO9xbhoJwCgqOQd x/7zcNmFs2nisiQGx/NjD2k= =+E5V -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
