Re: external dependencies; trolling for more feedback, pushing to make it official ; -)

[Richard Hughes <hughsient gmail com>]

On Fri, 2006-09-22 at 13:01 -0600, Elijah Newren wrote:
> On 9/22/06, Elijah Newren <newren gmail com> wrote:
> > On 9/22/06, Matthias Clasen <matthias clasen gmail com> wrote:
> > > Don't get me wrong, it is of course great to have the latest bugfixes and get
> > > dbus release candidates widely tested, but if the focus  is on answering the
> > > question: "can Gnome x.y be deployed on z ?" we should look at the hard
> > > requirements (as in can not work with a version older than...). Maybe
> > > we should split the list of external dependencies into required and
> > > recommended versions. Then we could have e.g. a required dbus-glib
> > > version of 0.70, but recommend 0.71.
> >
> > Sounds good to me...
> 
> And done -- http://live.gnome.org/TwoPointSeventeen/ExternalDependencies
> has been split into minimum versions and recommended versions, with
> the minimum versions being lowered for the three tarballs you pointed
> out and the recommended versions being bumped higher for the important
> ones Kjartan pointed out.

Looks good. Might be worth discussing libnotify now we are on the topic
of library deps. For gnome-power-manager 2.17.1 I'm in the unpleasant
situation of requiring CVS HEAD for libnotify to work 'correctly'
because of a bug[1] in the latest release for the GtkStatusIcon
handling. I think we should aim for libnotify-0.4.3 for 2-17 as it
should be easier to compile than libvolume_id. That was a joke btw.
JOKE! :-)

On a more serious note, is libnotify "blessed" as a hard dep yet?

Richard.

[1] http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=356431