HAL 0.1 release

[Lars Hallberg]

Havoc Pennington wrote:

>On Wed, 2003-10-01 at 13:39, David Zeuthen wrote:
>  
>
>>Anyone else got a take on python vs. XML?
>>    
>>
>
>XML. You want this to be data, not code. Mixing the two causes problems.
>Data is much more well-defined.
>  
>

Agree

>Also I agree the python dependency is undesirable. Really ought to go
>with the zero deps here (especially for the client library; a daemon may
>be able to get away with something like GLib).
>  
>

Have not played with glib for a long time and I don't know how well it 
is spitt up and how much internal dependencis it have. But if the need 
is for only a subset of glib, that don't depend on the rest of glib - 
staticly linking to the exactly needed object files might be a solution. 
That mean no dependencys on glib being instald or witch version of glib 
being installd. It should also put all desktops on equal standing in 
fotprint. But ther *might* still be some kind of 'political' dependence :-/

Off corse, it is a small fotprint cost compered with dynamicly linking 
glib (if glib is used anyway by other aplikations), but not realy any 
cost compered with reinventing the same stuff - and it would increese 
robustness (compered with both alternative)!

Probably best way to do it is to include a snapshot of neded source 
files from glib in the cvs/tarball and bould the neded objectfiles 
during make. But still having the advantage of a upstream to send 
bugfixes/enhansment to and a, by updating those files from time to time, 
a upstream to resive others bugfixes/enhansment from. Less duplikation 
of effort simply put.

/LaH