On Wed, 2008-06-11 at 11:29 +0800, Jedy Wang wrote:

> On Tue, 2008-06-10 at 11:45 -0500, Brian Cameron wrote: 
> 
> > Jedy:
> > 
> > >>> - Now that we have a complete list of packages, ie.e. same as the rest 
> > >>> of the community, should we use a separate package name instead of 
> > >>> tagging onto gnome-panel?
> > >> If I remember correctly, the GNOME community has been talking about
> > >> eventually merging libsexy into GTK+ or some other base library.
> > >> If libsexy will be a temporary library, it probably makes more
> > >> sense to "hide" it in a package like the panel or base-libs
> > >> package rather than making it more visible with a separate
> > >> package.  Just my opinion, though.
> > > 
> > > Yes, there is a bug filed against this in bugzilla
> > > (http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=508810). But I do not know
> > > when will this be accomplished. If we can convince that it will go into
> > > gtk in 1 or 2 GNOME release, we can just leave it alone. But if this
> > > will take a real long time(such as 2 or 3 years), then it would be a
> > > good idea to make a seperated package. IMPO, I think we put too many
> > > applications/libraries in one signle package.
> > 
> > If the long-term plan is for libsexy to go away, then I think it makes
> > more sense for it to be integrated into an existing package.  Why
> > add new packages and remove them in a few builds?
> 
> Hi Brian,
> 
> I had considered to put libnoitfy/notification-daemon in
> SUNWgnome-base-libs but libnotify/notification-daemon depends on wnck
> which is in SUNWgnome-panel. So if we want to put
> libnotify/notification-daemon into an existing package,
> SUNWgnome-panel is the best choice.

Sorry, please ignore previous mail. Just released that you are talking
about libsexy not libnotify. Moving libsexy into base-libs is
reasonable.

Regards,

Jedy

> 
> Regards,
> 
> Jedy 
> 
> > 
> > Brian
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/jds-review/attachments/20080611/1f19c1e3/attachment.html>

Reply via email to