Re: [java-gnome-hackers] Looking for contributors for my incomplete Java-Gnome Bazaar branches

[Andrew C. <an...@op...>]

On Mon, 2009-07-27 at 21:37 +0200, Guillaume Mazoyer wrote:
> I'm interesting in continuing your libsexy work. I guess we should
> take care while implementing SexyIconEntry stuffs. Since GTK+ 2.16

On the one hand, libsexy is cool.

On the other hand, some people are trying to get rid of it:
http://live.gnome.org/GnomeGoals/DropLibsexy I'm not sure how Christian
feels about that, or how we should feel about that.

As far as I can tell, all the icon × Entry functionality is in GTK 2.17
(if not 2.16).

Does SexySpellEntry use the same back end that GtkSpell does?

I know the new tooltip API is powerful, but I don't know if it does what
sexy offers.

> we must push GTK requirement to version 2.16

There are several branches floating around that require gtk+ >= 2.16,
and we agreed previously that we would bump the dep to 2.16 during this
cycle. So go ahead.

Anyway, I'm not against a libsexy dependency, but if GNOME is trying to
remove it, maybe we should think twice about it.

AfC
Sydney