2008/10/29 Ted Gould <ted@...11...>

On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 08:25 +0000, john cliff wrote:
> Wasnt half the point of having it in our tree that we're using
> bleeding edge SVN 2geom with our guys making fairly regular changes?
> Why screw around with whats working?
> Plus what does this do to non linux builds? Can we please think about
> this properly before we break the build/make life harder for people to
> fix bugs.

Well, you can make that argument for any library. Should we include
libc? GTK? What about gcc bugs? :)

That statements just daft, none of those are spinoffs of inkscape, none of them share a number of devs with us and non of them are being modified on a regular basis to fix bugs exposed by their use in our codebase.

The reality that including a library is like crack, the longer it is in
the more people that go "I can't work any other way" when it should be
removed. Also the higher the likelyhood that internal APIs get used
and/or changes are actually made the library itself so then it can never
be removed.

k, that ones even dafter. the guys using it are the same guys developing it.

Their the people defining the APIs, and what to expose etc, so I really dont see the point of this statement.

Again, this isnt a lib we're getting from strangers...

When the decision was made to include lib2geom it was because there
wasn't a release to build on. There is now. If the 2geom folks have
bugs, I'm sure they'll do a bugfix release. And we should encourage
that as then the Scribus guys and other users of the library will get
those benefits also.

Why would we want to add a shedload of complication to SVN? both inkscape and 2geom are undergoing an interlinked dev

cycle, why try and formalise changes by making them role out a new release every time a bug gets fixed. Again, daft idea.

I'm not committing this change today. I'm building up to it. I
consider this fair warning to packagers on other platforms to start
getting their platform in shape for the change.

--Ted