On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 10:46:54 -0800 Alan Coopersmith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Kyle McDonald wrote: > > a) Xscreensaver. The dependency on GTK might be solved similiar to > > DBUS and HAL with packaging. It's my suggestion though that if the > > dependencies for XscreenSaver were considered harder, then a better > > solution might have been found for integrating the Accessibility > > technology into it. For instance it could have been coded to dynamically > > load (and call into) the accessibility libs only if they were present. > > > > This would have allowed it to be installed and function with out > > any GNOME packages, and the the dependencies they bring, and yet would > > have enable that functionality if they were present. > > The missing link here is deciding it's worthwhile to do that work. > When xscreensaver was added to Solaris during one of the Solaris 9 > update releases it was explicitly to provide a screensaver for the > GNOME 2.0 desktop. Making it depend on GTK+ was a goal of that > work - making it installable without any GNOME libraries was not, > and is still not a goal today for those at Sun paid to do this work. "Making it depend on GTK+ was a goal of that work" Wow!! That's some extrordinarily bizarre goal setting there... Assumption that anyone running X will _also_necessarily want to be dependent on Gnome. Now to say that you're too lazy to separate the two is one thing, but to pass off as a "featured goal" is quite another, imho. I can imagine how the KDE4 integration team is feeling about that (just as one example from w/in Sun itself). -- Best regards, Ken Gunderson Q: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. A: Why is putting a reply at the top of the message frowned upon? _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
