On 13 Apr 1999, Rob Browning wrote:
> Sean Christopher Rhea <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Another thing that should probably be thought about is how many of
> > the special features of each dependency are REALLY needed for
> > GNUcash to work. One nice thing about a lot of the GNU programs is
> > that if you have the latest and greatest version of a particular
> > library, they'll use it; if you don't, however, they'll notice it in
> > the configure script, set some defines, and work around it. Could
> > this not be done for the Motif 2.0 symbols, or maybe libguile?
>
> This is a potentially good idea, but the problem is that we're in an
> intermediate phase right now, and it's not clear that working on more
> modular support for temporary problems/modules is a good idea. For
> example, its not clear to me one way or the other whether or not we're
> going to keep the motif interface long term. If things continue to go
> well with GNOME, I suspect not. Also, I'm not completely sure we'll
> keep SWIG. I haven't had enough time to evaluate it, but it does
> cause some complexities that might (or might not) outweigh its
> benefits. I do know that guile is staying (at least as far as I'm
> concerned). As long as I'm writing a decent amount of the code,
> guile's only likely to become more central, not less.
>
Why would you like to drop SWIG? It's the only package no one has
complained about :)
alex.
----- %< -------------------------------------------- >% ------
The GnuCash / X-Accountant Mailing List
To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and
put "unsubscribe gnucash-devel [EMAIL PROTECTED]" in the body
