On Tue, 2006-11-28 at 11:13 -0500, Robert Love wrote: > On Wed, 2006-11-22 at 21:00 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote: > > > So, several people suggested that having separate packages would be > > useful. I guess it's also useful for testing reasons and to send a clear > > message that NetworkManager is not GNOME-specific. And also it'll be > > easier to make new releases for GNOME releases. Things like that. > > > > Is there any reason the NM hackers would prefer to keep only one > > tarball? > > Yah, it is much easier to keep both in the same tarball since (a) it is > one CVS repository and (b) it is a single build tree. We'd have to make > changes upstream to go to two tarballs. > > Right now you can compile the daemon without the applet (e.g., for > KNetworkManager users) but not the applet without the daemon. Although > they are conceptually and technically separate, the tree is not set up > that way. > > And I am not all of NM; Dan should weigh in. I CC'ed him in case he is > not on this list.
Right, it's doable to separate the applet from the daemon in the sources, but would take a bit of work. They share some code (though it's libraries) and so the majority of the work would be getting a good split between the two by getting NM to install the correct stuff in the right place. That really just means making sure that nm-utils.c/nm-utils.h is available to both, or folding that into the libnm-util shared library, which should be done anyway for sanity's sake. If it's a priority, it can certainly be done. Dan _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
