Jedy Wang wrote: > 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. If this is what you want to do, should you not also move libnotify/notification daemon out of gnome-panel? > 2) if we should move libsexy into one existing package, I prefer > gnome-base-libs. How do you address the question I raised above for OpenSolaris repositories scenarios? (i..e. Possibly of mismatch version of libnotify and libsexy being installed by user, for example?)
-Ghee > > Regards, > > Jedy >> >> -Ghee >> > >> > Regards, >> > >> > Jedy >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> >> >> Jedy >> >>> Brian >> >>> >> >>
