libxfcegui4/xfce4-modules

[Edscott Wilson Garcia]

On Fri, 17 Feb 2006, Brian J. Tarricone wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hey Edscott,
>
> Edscott Wilson Garcia wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Sat, 4 Feb 2006, Brian J. Tarricone wrote:
>>
>>> Hey all,
>>>
>>> I guess this could possibly be a sensitive subject, but I'm wondering if
>>> it wouldn't be a bad idea to remove xfce4-modules from libgui, and keep
>>> it with xffm, since AFAIK xffm is the only piece of software that uses
>>> it (assuming it still *does* use it).  I'd hesitate to call it API/ABI
>>> breakage since they're all separate libraries, and packagers can just
>>> rely on another package to get xfce4-modules if another app requires them.
>>>
>>> My reasoning is that, since no core part of xfce uses xfce4-modules, and
>>> we've been trying to reduce dependencies and package load, it seems to
>>> make sense to move it elsewhere.  Thoughts?
>>
>> Xfrun still uses it, but that could be switched to use the improved
>> modules in libxffm. Xfrun needs to be fixed anyways, it's much too clunky on cold starts.
>
> All right, I've replaced xfrun4 with something that doesn't need
> xfce4-modules.  Ok if I "svn rm xfce4-modules"?
>

Yes, otherwise they would have to be updated with the improved versions of 
these modules in libxffm/mods. But since they are already in libxffm/mods, 
there is no good reason to duplicate them.

I don't think you should ditch the use of xfcombo.i and libdbh from the 
code. Just leave it inside the #ifdef LIBDBH, thus it will effectively be removed 
from installations without the necessary libraries, but will be 
able to share completion information for installations with xffm.

Although on a second thought, maybe I should just overwrite xfrun with
xffm-run on systems with xffm. That would probably be less 
complicated for us and more confusing to the droids.


regards,