Matthew Paul Thomas [2011-04-21 10:47 +0100]: > Regardless of how good or bad that process was, it is not reasonable to > *then* say that Ubuntu application developers "have every right to use" > everything that's "adopted upstream in GNOME/GTK". That would mean > Ubuntu's APIs should be beholden to whatever Gnome Shell does or does > not need.
TBH I have some difficulty parsing this, but I wasn't actually speaking about the indicator part. Of course we, and app developers, can and should use the API, as it provides a better and more consistent user interface. What I meant is that GtkStatusIcon is an official GTK API still, and as long as it is I don't think it's beneficial or polite to deliberately break this, as it currently causes so many broken applications. > There's a good example. Qt includes a Qt::Drawer window type, for use in > Mac applications. Does that mean Compiz in Ubuntu should implement > drawers? Of course not. It might be suitable for Mac applications, but > it isn't suitable for Ubuntu applications. In the same way, > GtkStatusIcon might be suitable for Windows applications, but it isn't > suitable for Ubuntu applications. GtkStatusIcon has been suitable and working for Ubuntu applications for many years, while Qt::Drawer never was. > The concession for Skype is because Skype is proprietary (so we can't > fix it ourselves) and develops very slowly. The "develops slowly" and "can't fix ourselves" is also true for a lot of universe/third party free software packages. But I guess at this point we just need to agree to disagree about this. Thanks, and happy Easter holidays, Martin -- Martin Pitt | http://www.piware.de Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Developer (www.debian.org) -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel