On Thu, 2010-04-22 at 00:37 +0200, Philipp wrote: > Excerpts from Ng Oon-Ee's message of 2010-04-22 00:22:24 +0200: > > On Wed, 2010-04-21 at 22:04 +0200, fons@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 10:59:17PM +0800, Ng Oon-Ee wrote: > > > > > > > I appreciate the desire for a minimal system. What I don't understand is > > > > the vilifying of packages just because they're part of a standard Gnome > > > > install. > > > > > > That's not the point. According to the definition on > > > the gstreamer website > > > > > > "GStreamer is a library for constructing graphs of media-handling > > > components. The applications it supports range from simple Ogg/Vorbis > > > playback, audio/video streaming to complex audio (mixing) and video > > > (non-linear editing) processing." > > > > > > Fine. Potentially very interesting and useful. > > > > > > But if it depends on things that have *nothing at all* > > > to do with the claimed application domain - security > > > subsystems (keyrings) and configuration programs for > > > a specific desktop (gconf) that, at least in my world, > > > is a sign of *crappy design*. Which seems to invade > > > almost everything Gnome. One is almost tempted to believe > > > that introducing irrelevant dependencies is the essence > > > of the game. > > > > > > Ciao, > > > > > Would you prefer the developer reimplement security-authorization and a > > configuration parser, then? Its not even as if gconf and its editor > > aren't separated into different packages. > > I don't know what I need security authorization ind a multimedia backend > for. I don't know whether gconf is usable without its editor and it doesn't > matter really since it stays a gnome thing. Yes, I rather have an > application specific config than a DE specific config system. > Gconf is useable without its editor (just browse through the filesystem). This may or may not change in future, I've heard it may move to a database-based thing like currently in KDE. App-specific config is well and good, but more work on the part of the developer. Good software gets re-used, what's the difference between using gconf for your configuration needs and using boost for the 'standard' parts of your code? Or would you prefer to reimplement common mathematical algorithms just to not have to add the boost dependency?
