On Mon, 2003-03-03 at 23:57, iain wrote: > man, 2003-03-03 kl. 23:15 skrev Bastien Nocera: > > > Until that's done, it's a no-no. If you fancy spending your time > > creating and then fixing kernel modules for things like HP-UX and > > Solaris, go for it. > > > > But at that point in time, lufs isn't an option for gnome-vfs. > > I don't see why not, at least not based on the "other OSes can't support > it" reason. If its a compile time option and isn't a fixed requirement, > then IMO it's fine, so long as someone wants to write it. > > Not all OSes version of X handles things like XRender, but I don't see > that stopping GTK from using it where its available. > > Catering to the lowest common demoninator will leave us languishing, > afraid to support anything remotely interesting because some other > systems can't use it. > > Of course, any other arguments based on technical merits (or lack > thereof) of lufs are perfectly valid reasons though I guess that it's always possible to implement a gnome-vfs method that would use that. Given the overlap in functionality (see which methods are implemented in lufs and which ones are implemented in gnome-vfs), I don't see much of a point. The semantics of the two are also quite different. What is the point exactly again ? ;) -- Bastien Nocera <hadess hadess net>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part