Subject: RE: commit -- libglade support
From: Joaquin Cuenca Abela (cuenca@celium.net)
Date: Thu Feb 08 2001 - 12:07:13 CST
Dom wrote:
> Joaquin wrote:
> >Dom, how do you will feel if I ask you to remove gnome-print &
> gal support
> >from the gnome port because I can not use it in the uni? I
> think that the
> >smart reply will be: "that's your problem, not mine".
>
> Sounds like your gnome-core libs are out of date. Requiring packages that
> are in the stable branch of a released system isn't all that bad, IMHO.
> GnomePrint falls under this category.
>
> As for gal, I *personally* wrote some of those widgets. They will work
> anywhere gtk+ does, and I will import them into our tree if need be.
> Gnumeric and Evolution require GAL, and the point of the gnome port is to
> look and behave as much like the other gnome office components as
> possible.
> It's about consistency. GAL works everywhere that Gnome1.2 does,
> so I don't
> see your argument.
>
> I worked with Chema and Lauris for countless hours to get
> GnomePrint to work
> properly and ended up fixing lots of bugs there. I worked hard to
> make gal
> rock. I fought damn hard to make sure that AbiWord is part of
> Gnome Office,
> including long flames with Miguel. On Gnome, we should act like a
> GnomeOffice app and show *me* a little respect...
Maybe it's my english, but if here you're asking to me to show you a little
respect, I will first of all clarify some points:
1. I think that your work rocks.
2. I respect you. Very much. (and I respect very much Sam, and everybody
in the list)
3. I know how many have you worked in gal & gnome-print support.
> Your firewall is your problem, not mine. On Gnome, we require
4. That's the right reply.
> those packages
> that GnomeOffice apps require. *this* is not up for debate. As
And I agree.
> for getting
> these packages, they run anywhere and are shipped by RH, Debian,
> and Ximian,
> just to name a few.
>
> >What if I found an unix that doesn't has GTK+ 1.2? Should we
> drop the GTK+
> >"support"?
>
> You don't get this argument at all. It's about choosing what
> technologies we
> say are required. We require GTK+ 1.2 and I don't think that you
> will find
> anyone to argue against that. Requiring Glade is a different
> story because
> it is a different library, and you're finding someone who currently
> disagrees with you. My stance is "no glade until gettext". GLADE
ok. It's too my stance. I was not trying to require glade for any version
until these problems were solved. But we have a CVS version, not a release.
Users are not supposed to take a cvs version and use it.
> f'in rocks
> and I love it to death. But until *we're* ready for glade, we
> should not use
> glade.
and I agree.
> >P.S.: Even if we decide to drop libglade support (for
> portability reasons,
> >or some other reason) it would be *REALLY COOL* to leave it *AT
> LEAST UNTIL
> >THE LISTS DIALOG IS FINISHED*.
>
> I can be reasonable.
I never said the contrary. So everybody agrees to leave libglade support at
least until the lists dialog is finished (of course, if it is finished
before 0.9).
before send the patch I had private email with Martin about this feature,
and hi voluntered to degladeify the list dialog. Once it will be finished,
it will be a trivial task (even if Martin doesn't has the time, I will do
it).
I will add that I use Abiword in spanish, and that it's out of question to
lost the translations of any dialog. It was never my intention and I would
never accept libglade it implies no i18n (I was just hoping that somebody
will add gettext support before 0.9).
P.S.: I want to apologize if I've been arish. Really Dom I never wanted to
show you little respect or something like that.
Cheers,
-- Joaquin Cuenca Abela cuenca@celium.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Thu Feb 08 2001 - 12:06:39 CST