Comments on: GNOME 3 cleanup status update

By: Willibald Berger

Willibald Berger — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 20:32:37 +0000

Das sind alles ausgezeichnete Ansätze, die hier gepostet werden.

By: aklapper

aklapper — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 09:46:57 +0000

@Simon: Don’t know if blogs.gnome.org offers captchas.
Blocked the IPs instead.

By: Simon

Simon — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 03:14:02 +0000

Incidentally, have you considered putting a captcha or other anti-spam solution on your blog? I can’t help but notice a lot of unwanted noise…

By: Simon

Simon — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 21:59:11 +0000

@Andre – seems to me that a binding should reflect what it’s binding to. So if libgnomeui is deprecated, any direct binding to it should also be marked deprecated, but I don’t think it’s reasonable for the bindings to simply drop support for an official Gnome API, even if Gnome now discourage it’s use. Until those libraries are officially gone from Gnome, I don’t see a case for breaking compatibility by dropping support for them in other languages.

By: aklapper

aklapper — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 09:30:25 +0000

@Simon: I list bindings as they currently do not tell a developer who uses these bindings that the functionality he uses is deprecated. Bindings can drop their dependency on a deprecated API, e.g. by moving all the deprecated stuff to a separate -deprecated package, or by requiring a compile flag like “-enable-deprecated-stuff” or something like that. It’s unclear what is the best way to do this.

By: Simon

Simon — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 23:32:21 +0000

I note that you count bindings like gnome-sharp or gnome-python-desktop against your lists of packages using libgnome and other deprecated APIs. Isn’t this unrealistic? They’re bindings – they can’t drop their dependency on a deprecated API, any more than Gnome could simply drop that API instead of deprecating it…