On Wed, 2008-06-11 at 10:52 -0100, Ghee Teo wrote: > Jedy Wang wrote: > > 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. > We should not separate libnotify/notification-daemon and libsexy into > separate package in the light of OpenSolaris. > If we leave libsexy in base libs and when we update a release of this > module from community and our user has decided to to > ips update on base-libs only or panel only, their version of libsexy and > libnotify wil be out of sync.
I think dependency check(I do not know if IPS can do this) should fix this problem. > I don't mind which approach to take now, stuff them into panel or > create a new one. It seems to be there is more paper work than > actual engineering works to create a new packages. Since libsexy has > been arched, I think we should move this into panel for now. > Unless we have compelling reason to believe that it will not become part > of gtk+. Should it go into gtk+, we will most likely to > have to arc that as part of the GNOME case in the future, moving it out > then would be straight forwards then. If we really should move libsexy into one of gnome-base-libs or gnome-panel, according to its funcaality, I think gnome-base-libs is a better choice. So my opinion is: 1) I prefer to leave libsexy as a seperated package. Personally, I do not think putting too may things into a package is a good practice. 2) if we should move libsexy into one existing package, I prefer gnome-base-libs. Regards, Jedy > > > -Ghee > > > > Regards, > > > > Jedy > >> > >> Regards, > >> > >> Jedy > >>> Brian > >>> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/jds-review/attachments/20080611/582f88cc/attachment.html>
