On Mit, 2006-07-26 at 18:32 +0200, Murray Cumming wrote: > On Wed, 2006-07-26 at 11:25 -0500, Mike Kestner wrote: > > On Wed, 2006-07-26 at 18:21 +0200, Murray Cumming wrote: > > > > > > gtk-sharp-2.10.0 would keep glib-sharp, pango-sharp, atk-sharp, > > > > gdk-sharp, gtk-sharp, glade-sharp, and gtkdotnet. I would propose this > > > > altered package for inclusion in the Bindings release set. > > > > > > That seems a lot nicer. > > > > > > I am, however, slightly concerned that this would force people to depend > > > on libglade even when we have a libglade replacement in GTK+. The C, C > > > ++, Python, Java, and Perl users will be able to rewrite their > > > applications so that they don't need libglade on the system. > > > > glade-sharp is an optional build. We're not forcing anyone to put it on > > their systems. > > These optional builds don't help much, unless people are using gentoo > (or other source-based distros). > > If the binary package was built with glade support then distros are > unlikely to change their binary package in the future to remove the > glade support. That would be an ABI break.
gtk-sharp has a separate glib-sharp-2.0.pc pkg-config file, so it's relatively easy to provide multiple binary packages from one source package or am I missing something? _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list