Re: [Gnome-print] Re: GnomeFont state of affairs


>>>>> "Havoc" == Havoc Pennington <> writes:

    > Lauris Kaplinski <> writes:
    >> Now my own reasoning for separate Gnome font API is following:
    >> Gnome has some specific needs, which are not covered by
    >> low-level API - such as font installing, font sharing in
    >> workgroups, font matching between different output devices & so
    >> on.

    > Can you please try to have only a glib/pango dependency? I see
    > no reason you need a GNOME dependency here.

    > If it has a GNOME dependency, people will have to reimplement a
    > generally-useful solution. Most Linux distributions won't be
    > able to adopt a GNOME-specific solution for installing fonts,
    > for example.

GNOME will be everywhere, Havoc.  That is the whole point of this
project.  So there is really no problem in a single part of GNOME
depending on GNOME itself.

I think we need parity of goals here.  My goal is to make GNOME
succeed, to make it ubiquitous, and to make it the best desktop
environment in the world.  So I am doing everything I can to make that

There's no middle road here: either give up on GNOME or let's push
this platform as far as we can.

    > Probably shouldn't call it GnomeFont either, perhaps GFont with
    > a gfont_ prefix for functions, similar to GConf.

Why would you want to do this?  


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]