[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: why do we still ship (gtk1) xmms, when we have bmp




Ville Skyttä wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-06-17 at 23:46 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> 
>> So there is a maintained and gtk2 using xmms out there, why do we thrn
>> still ship xmms itself?
> 
> AFAIK a lot of plugins are available only for xmms, other media players
> can use libxmms and the plugins,

bmp has libbmp which is api compatible with libxmms and I beleave (but I
am in no way sure) even abi), the plugin interface is not ABI but is API
compatible, so doing a recompile is all that it should take.

One note though I tried audacious yesterday which is a fork of bmp
(after bmp was declared dead by its maintainers) and we really should
having this discussion about audacious as bmp is kinda dead.

Audacious works fine and comes with quite a lot of plugins out of the
box. (Not all though).

> gtk1 dependency chain is a lot smaller
> than gtk2 which may matter eg. in "pure" KDE setups.
They will need this anyway for system-config-xxxx, or openoffice or
firefox. AFAIK xmms is one of the few aps left using gtk1, the whole
point of my post is that there are xmms replacememts out there with the
same functionality (the same codebase even) that use gtk2. I was hoping
that having a good replacement for xmms could sooner or later lead do
really dropping gtk+.

> it works, has a
> package maintainer and is not quite dead upstream either based on CVS
> commits.

True, and I guess that as long as there is a maintainer willing to keep
it in good shape, we should ship it since that is how extras works.

I guess its just that people don't know about these replacements and
that these replacements are really an improvement (gtk+ is kinda ugly to
name one).

Anyways I'll contact the bmp maintainer and ask him if he is willing to
replace bmp with audacious, we really don't need 3 xmms versions. Then
I'll start helping him getting as many as possible (all) the xmms
plugins also available for audacious. I do feel that there is a waste of
effort here and that audacious is the way to go. It has a really active
upstream which IMHO is important.

Regards,

Hans




[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]