[maemo-developers] [maemo-developers] Why "hildon-lgpl"
From: Tommi Komulainen tommi.komulainen at nokia.comDate: Fri Nov 11 17:36:58 EET 2005
- Previous message: [maemo-developers] Why "hildon-lgpl"
- Next message: [maemo-developers] svn access for C++ bindings
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On Fri, 2005-11-11 at 10:35 +0100, ext Murray Cumming wrote: > > If you have ideas what kind of package / > > library grouping would make sense, we're open for suggestions. > > At the moment it looks like hildon-libs, hildon-fm, and hildon-lgpl should > all be in one tarball, but maybe there's some application/lib I don't know > about that wouldn't need all of them. One reason to keep hildon-fm separate is because it drags in quite a few extra libraries that applications might not need. There are still a couple of applications (for example Control Panel and Calculator) that don't play with files, though most probably will. > But it's not an important detail for most developers. I just want to make > sure that the C++ stuff is as clear as possible without creating > disadvantages. Yeah, I agree. On the other hand I also hate the overly careful handling of library dependencies (application ends up depending on every possible library because there's a widget the application doesn't use but depends on the next library, etc.) -- Tommi Komulainen <tommi.komulainen at nokia.com>
- Previous message: [maemo-developers] Why "hildon-lgpl"
- Next message: [maemo-developers] svn access for C++ bindings
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]