Re: ATTN: intent to release 1.1.0 based on CVS HEAD

From: Martin Sevior (msevior@physics.unimelb.edu.au)
Date: Sat Sep 07 2002 - 07:04:55 EDT

  • Next message: Martin Sevior: "Re: Commit: put images on the clipboard, paste them from the CB"

    On Fri, 6 Sep 2002, Dom Lachowicz wrote:

    > > C) Uwog said "invoke the wrath of dom." I originally said, "*at the
    > > risk of invoking the wrath of dom," then changed it to my new
    > > favourite running gag, "*at the risk of invoking 'AbiWord II: The
    > > Wrath of Dom'."
    >
    > /me pokes EAZen in his characteristic "ever not-so-subtle way"
    >
    > > D) Will there be a source option with all plugins included? That
    > > would be "boffo good!"
    >
    > That would be hella sweet. Or at least some mondo-large plugin packs.
    > Some plugins have limited usefulness, large external dependencies, or
    > both, and as such should not be redistributed.
    >
    > > E) ACK! GNOME IS DEAD! HE SAID IT AGAIN! (yet, if you're using
    > > gtk<anything>, you're using glib...)
    >
    > Perhaps *Gnome-libs* is not so dead as I once thought, but it's not
    > overwhelmingly important any more. Most of the more useful bits are in
    > GTK+ and friends now, and I still stand by that statement. That said, I
    > plan for us to have a GNOME port by Abi version 2.0. It will have:

    I was going to ask about this too.
    >
    > 1) GNOME About dialog
    > 2) GNOME URL opener instead of our hackish browser auto-detection
    > 3) Bonobo control for Abi, like 1.0.2 did
    > 4) Gnome Print (this may be made a requirement for the GTK+ build too)

    Also drag and drop files, images and URL's. Maybe we should make the bare
    GTK build handle all these things too?

    > 5) *Maybe* Bonobo container, so we can embed apps

    We need to think about file formats for this very nice feature.

    > 6) *Maybe* GConf
    > 7) *Maybe* a nautilus view

    We should be able to do this without too much trouble. I just ran out of
    patience/time for 1.0.2 and since then Nautilus2 with a different
    interface has come along.

    >
    > All things considered, our GNOME2 port will only involve a few ifdefs
    > and a few additional files, instead of the massive beast that the gnome
    > 1.4 port was.
    >

    I've been thinking about this. Does it make sence to port our
    xap_UnixGnomeFrame and ap_UnixGnomeFrame as subclasses of the UnixFrame's
    or are you planning ifdefs inside the UnixFrame classes?

    Cheers

    Martin

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Sep 07 2002 - 07:07:55 EDT