1 |
On 21 June 2010 21:14, Maciej Mrozowski <reavertm@×××××.com> wrote: |
2 |
[...] |
3 |
> If that's the case (they are essential for Gnome or whatever to work, just two |
4 |
> files per package, not bringing any additional dependencies nor probability of |
5 |
> causing compilation failures), I find it rather odd to make it optional at |
6 |
> all. |
7 |
|
8 |
As I explained, the reason I think it makes sense to make it optional |
9 |
is for embedded systems, where you want to enable introspection for |
10 |
only the subset of your package where you need the dynamically |
11 |
generated bindings. I agree that this is a tenuous argument in itself, |
12 |
but I figure that now that we've started this way, and there /is/ a |
13 |
benefit to it, we might as well carry it through. |
14 |
|
15 |
I'm still trying to think of a good name. I understand the concerns |
16 |
about "introspection" being too generic and non GNOME-y, but "gir" is |
17 |
likely to cause confusion. |
18 |
|
19 |
-- |
20 |
Arun Raghavan |
21 |
http://arunraghavan.net/ |
22 |
(Ford_Prefect | Gentoo) & (arunsr | GNOME) |