Le vendredi 16 mars 2007, à 16:51, Shaun McCance a écrit :
> On Fri, 2007-03-16 at 22:21 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Did you think gnome-common was an official module? It's not :-)
> > Many modules are using it, so let's just fix this small issue. We can
> > either propose gnome-com
> Do any modules depend on it (or need to) at tarball-build-time or runtime?
If any do, that would certainly be a bug.
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
On Fri, 2007-03-16 at 22:21 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Did you think gnome-common was an official module? It's not :-)
> Many modules are using it, so let's just fix this small issue. We can
> either propose gnome-common for inclusion in the desktop, or propose it
> for inclusion in the
Hi,
Did you think gnome-common was an official module? It's not :-)
Many modules are using it, so let's just fix this small issue. We can
either propose gnome-common for inclusion in the desktop, or propose it
for inclusion in the platform or just bless it as an external
dependency.
External depe
On Fri, 2007-03-16 at 20:43 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Right now, modules in desktop/admin/devtools suites can use the python
> bindings. We also accept the use of gtk# for proposed modules. However,
> it was never really agreed whether it was okay or not to use our C++
> bindings fo
Hi all,
Right now, modules in desktop/admin/devtools suites can use the python
bindings. We also accept the use of gtk# for proposed modules. However,
it was never really agreed whether it was okay or not to use our C++
bindings for GNOME modules.
Those bindings have been rock-solid for quite som
