On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 07:11:36PM +0000, Ted Gould wrote:
On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 12:17 -0300, bulia byak wrote:
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 9:21 AM, <J.B.C.Engelen@...1578...> wrote:
The release does not change anything for Inkscape. Since Inkscape needs bleeding edge 2geom, we have to carry it in our SVN.
I think Johan, as a 2geom devel, has the ultimate say on this. It's not a bad thing to put up a separate 2geom package, so that distros and people start getting used to its existence. But we should not break anything in the current Inkscape/2geom linkage until all 2geom developers approve that.
Makes sense. But I don't think that "bug free" should be the goal. It will never be 100% bug free. It should be API stable. Which I believe, from the release notes is what the goal of 0.2.0 was:
This release comes out of a discussion I had with Nathan while he was visiting the other weekend. The reasoning I gave for starting to do releases was *not* to fix Inkscape to a particular version, but rather to get it into distros, and to help people outside the 2geom/inkscape get familiar with it.
In particular, by selecting a version number <1.0.0, this communicates that the API definitely is *not* stable yet. This may indeed mean that the 2geom code cannot be broken out yet as an external dependency... but it gets us on a path where we *will* be able to do that some day.
WRT people who want to use development versions of 2geom with Inkscape, there is already a well established way to do that. You can change your PKG Config directories to point to any version you'd like. As long as the Inkscape build uses PKG Config correctly it'll pick that version up.
I think this is good to know, and an arrangement worth getting to at some point, but let's take care not to rush into this quite yet. I agree with bulia that we should wait until the 2geom developers feel it's time to break the current Inkscape/2geom linkages, and for now just encourage them to continue making frequent releases.
Bryce