On Mon, 02.02.09 07:49, King InuYasha (ngompa13 gmail com) wrote:For a core piece of an API keeping compat is certainly important. But
> But when you break something as major as libgnome, steps should be taken to
> ease the transition. Perhaps the function could be forwarded? I'm not really
> much of a programmer, but I recognize that you can't just break
> functionality in core libraries like that and expect everyone to fix their
> apps up "just like that." Fowarding the function (for compatibility
> purposes) while deprecating it would probably be more ideal. In any case,
> that's just my two cents...
this is sound events, don't forget that. Quite frankly, most people have them
It has been documented that this can be disabled at compile time and
it's pretty unimportant anyway and there is a much better replacement
available. Hence I'd assume that the advantage of getting rid of this
legacy cruft will always be more attractive then keeping it around.
Lennart Poettering Red Hat, Inc.
lennart [at] poettering [dot] net ICQ# 11060553
http://0pointer.net/lennart/ GnuPG 0x1A015CC4
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list redhat com