moving the panel-plugins to the panel. [Was: HelloAgain()]

[Brian J. Tarricone]

Stephan Arts wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Why exactly do the trash-plugin and the menu-plugin reside inside the
> thunar and xfdesktop modules?

Because Thunar provides the trash, and xfdesktop provides the menu.

> IMHO, it makes more sense if xfce4-panel opt-depends on libxfce4menu
> and thunar-vfs then xfdesktop and thunar opt-depending on xfce4-panel.

That's completely backwards.

> that makes the dep-chain a lot less difficult:
> 
> - xfce-dev-tools
> - libxfce4util
> - libexo, libxfcegui4, libxfce4menu, xfconf
> - thunar
> - xfdesktop, xfwm4, xfce4-settings, xfce4-session, xfce-utils,
> gtk-engine-xfce-2, xfce4-mixer, xfce4-panel
> 
> 
> as opposed to:
> 
> - xfce-dev-tools
> - libxfce4util
> - libexo, libxfcegui4, libxfce4menu, xfconf
> - xfce4-panel
> - thunar
> - xfdesktop, xfwm4, xfce4-settings, xfce4-session, xfce-utils,
> gtk-engine-xfce-2, xfce4-mixer

It's not about making the dep chain simpler, it's about what makes sense 
from a logical point of view.  Thunar/thunar-vfs implements trash 
functionality, so it can provide a panel plugin if the user wants one. 
Xfdesktop implements menu functionality, and can provide a panel plugin 
if the user wants one.

And besides... moving *one* package out of the base dep chain isn't 
really much of an improvement...  And your "new" dep chain is incorrect. 
  It really looks like this:

- xfce-dev-tools
- libxfce4util
- libexo, libxfcegui4, libxfce4menu, xfconf
- thunar
- xfdesktop, xfwm4, xfce4-settings, xfce4-session, xfce-utils, 
gtk-engine-xfce-2, xfce4-mixer
- xfce4-panel

So you didn't actually move a package into the "it doesn't matter what 
order you compile these" bin, you just moved it as a post-dep. 
Actually, you've made it MORE complicated, because what I just put above 
isn't really completely accurate.  It actually makes xfce4-panel fall 
directly below xfdesktop and thunar, but *not* below xfwm4, 
xfce4-settings, etc.  So the dep tree now has an extra branch.

> eg, you don't need to compile the panel prior to other apps in order
> to get all the features. You can explain to people they need the libs,
> config-tool and file-manager. But the panel?!

I'm not seeing why this doesn't make sense.  It makes perfect sense. 
The panel provides libxfce4panel.  If you want to compile a panel 
plugin, you need libxfce4panel.

> I think this sounds more difficult then it really is, and it would be
> a significant improvement to the dep-chain.

I don't care about the dep chain: packagers do.  And they haven't 
complained, so there's no problem.

> What do you guys think, is it a good idea, and can we fix this in xfce 4.6?

It's a bad idea, nothing needs to be fixed, and thinking about a change 
like this for 4.6 at this point is a bad idea anyway.

	-brian