exo & dependencies

[Mike Massonnet]

2010/5/3 Nick Schermer <nickschermer at gmail.com>:
> On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Olivier Fourdan <fourdan at gmail.com> wrote:
>> (*) which for me is pure nonsense since the main benefit of using
>> libglade or gtkbuilder is to be able to change the UI without
>> recompiling, which is not possible with the way we do, ie include the
>> UI description in the executable.
>
> It does however ensures the glade markup is always available and it is
> somewhat faster (because exo-csource does xml stripping). You are
> (obviously) not forced to do this and load the config from a file, I
> do this in Terminal to keep the binary size smaller. For components
> that are started once, I'd personally prefer the 'safe' way and
> include the xml.

On another though, who “patches” binary packages? If a distributor is
going to provide different settings dialogues, it can be done but in
the source package like for Debian and Fedora packages. Nobody (one in
a million) is going to edit the Glade file under /usr/share to mock
the interface. Granted this can still sound nonsense because this
process needs one to tweak the file, compile, test instead of simply
tweaking and testing. It's more work, and I tend to think it is worth
reading the dialogues of the xfce4-settings project from XML files.

That's entirely debatable, it should be (is) left open to the
maintainer although things are trying hard at being consistent between
core components. I like the h file, and since I don't intend at all
the graphic to be changed by the end-user, it only makes my part of
the coding a lot easier when it comes to rework the GUI.

Cheers
PS: I didn't notice my first mail didn't hit xfce at x.o, what I said is
that I've put on my todo list “provide patches for autogen.sh” to
check for the necessary programs. Rethinking this just right now, the
configure script should check for the program but embraced within a if
maintainer-mode. I will do that sooner or later.
-- 
Mike