glib-networking exists for political reasons. I don't think we want to repeat that with something we can just import in-tree.
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Matthew Barnes <mbar...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Tue, 2013-10-08 at 08:58 -0400, Dan Winship wrote: > > enchant depends on glib, so yes, a hard dependency on it from glib would > > be a problem. But enchant development has more or less stopped (last > > commit was two years ago), and if glib had equivalent functionality then > > enchant would be pretty much unnecessary. So it might make more sense to > > just absorb it into glib (which Dom seemed in favor of in that bug > anyway). > > Or perhaps follow the "glib-networking" pattern where GIO just defines a > spell checking interface and an extension point and the meaty parts with > the extra dependencies are supplied by 3rd party module(s). > > "glib-spell-checking" anyone? :) > > Matthew Barnes > > _______________________________________________ > gtk-devel-list mailing list > gtk-devel-list@gnome.org > https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list > -- Jasper
_______________________________________________ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
