> > libbse, libgic and libgpf are NO extensions. Thus, how should we mark > > ggi libs, which are NO extensions? IMO, extensions should be > > distinguishable from non-extensions by their (package-)names. > I clearly seem to fail to understand why this would be important, but > anyway, this is not a problem (possibly an aesthetic issue, though).
I'd as well say, it's an aesthetic issue. The only thing that differntiates an extension from a lib that merely uses libGGI is, that extensions tend to be locked to a specific LibGGI version as they have access to internal structures. > Mind you, the number of packages depending on libggi is sinking > continously ... > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That's bad, but no wonder. I will detail on this in another post. > Please, consider how you really want to call your libs and extensions > wrt. filenames! What a nice plug, that even one of your core dev's had > to find that the name of any lib had silently changed Yeah well. Maybe some misunderstanding. It has been rolled back to libggiwmh, which is IMHO a good thing to avoid namespace pollution. If all Libs that are clearly dependent on LibGGI and originate form the GGI project carry a ggi in the name, this might actually promote the term GGI further and it seems to cause the fewest problems with namespace as well. > and the cases that i bring up to you as The Project. I'm really sorry > if i make you feel uncomfortable from time to time ... No - you are very right to make us feel uncomfortable from time to time. We usually deserve it. I already took some slapping with a red haddock from Christoph earlier that day, for dropping silent for so long, and I think I also deserved that. The misunderstanding with wmh could have been avoided easily, if we would communicate better. I'll detail on that now in another post. CU, Andy -- = Andreas Beck | Email : <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> =
