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

[Alex Graveley <alex beatniksoftware com>]

This sounds great, and will help Gtk# t be used by many more people!

Sorry to add confusion, but how does this help the Tomboy discussion? 
I'm using gnome-sharp and gconf-sharp.  And hopefully the panel APIs in 
the future (there is a crasher bug currently, so I'm using a local copy).

Would we add gnome-sharp as a soft dependency if Tomboy is included, 
similar to e.g. libsoup for Evolution?

-Alex

Mike Kestner wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-07-26 at 17:47 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:
>
> > > gtk-sharp-2.10.0 would keep glib-sharp, pango-sharp, atk-sharp,
> > > gdk-sharp, gtk-sharp, glade-sharp, and gtkdotnet.  I would propose this
> > > altered package for inclusion in the Bindings release set.
> > (I don't know what's in gtkdotnet, but I suppose it's stuff to make it
> > easier to use gtk+)
>
> Stuff to allow drawing on Gdk windows with the .Net System.Drawing API.
> Any future additions will be of a similar flavor.  Helper classes for
> access to .Net APIs for which we don't want to put an additional
> dependency on gtk-sharp.dll.
>
> > > The division should satisfy all the rules.  There is no rule against a
> > > platform binding living in the Desktop release set.
> > This looks like it would work. gnome-vfs-sharp, gnome-sharp and
> > gconf-sharp could go in the bindings suite too, but this would imply
> > either creating a third package or moving them in gtk-sharp-2.10.0.
>
> Putting all the gnome stuff in one gnome-sharp package has a certain
> marketability/sense to it.  And gnome-sharp can't go in platform.  It's
> the source of all this angst, because it has the dreaded print and panel
> APIs.