Re: Putting the 'Mono debate' back on the rails

[Ben Maurer <bmaurer andrew cmu edu>]

On Sun, 23 Jul 2006, Eugenia Loli-Queru wrote:
> Miguel wrote: "I would be interested in understanding what the issues of
> non-splitting are, from the GNOME point of view."
>
> For one, if in the future Gnome would like to provide an embedded version
> (there was some talk about it already), it would be easier to pick and
> choose components as seen fit. In a 64 MB firmware you can't  fit
> everything, usually... Of course, I don't think that this means that you
> need 3 different tarballs instead of 1. As long the selective functionality
> is present in your current tarball (via an autoconf option), I don't see why
> it should be physically split in different tarballs. But some form of
> seperation must exist as the rest of the Gnome is very modular in its
> nature.

This can be done today. Look at:

http://svn.myrealbox.com/viewcvs/trunk/gtk-sharp/configure.in.in?rev=56950&view=auto

and notice how the build *won't* fail if optional stuff isn't there.

> Lastly, I believe that having a modular GTK# is better for GTK# itself.
> Think about it: a third party embedded company wants to use it, but it

This can be done today!

> Please refer to the email I sent yesterday. You can still offer a migration
> path to your existing apps and maintain it as long as you see fit or needed.
> Not all is lost.

It's already possible to link just to Gtk+.

-- Ben