Edward S. Marshall
emarshal at logic.net
Tue Nov 17 19:37:04 CET 1998
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Tue, 17 Nov 1998, Thomas Mikkelsen wrote:
> Should gpg come with its own frontends: Im am thinking about something
> like the gnucash project where you can choose between several frontends.
> How does "./configure --enable-gnome" or "configure --enable-kde" sound
> to you.
I'd actually suggest that this remain separate. You really don't want to
start wars about whether having a KDE frontend bundled with an
FSF-copyrighted project is a good idea, or arguments over why desktop 'n'
or toolkit 'm' isn't supported, for infinite values of 'n' and 'm' (GTK+,
QT, curses, OS/2, BeOS, Win32, Gnome, KDE, ad infinitum).
Also, while building frontends is certainly a nice idea, bundling them
with the core package won't keep them maintained; only active interest in
maintaining them will do that.
Finally, GPG is a utility, unlike GNUCash, which is an end-user
application. There's a pretty substantial difference here.
I'd vote to keep it out of the core GPG distribution. This doesn't mean
I'm against a frontend (I actually rather like GnomePGP), but that I'm
against bundling it with the GPG core set, and think that it should be
maintained separately, as an end-user app.
Just MHO, of course, and subject to change. ;-)
Edward S. Marshall <emarshal at logic.net> /> Who would have thought that we -o)
http://www.logic.net/~emarshal/ // would be freed from the Gates of /\\
Linux Weenie, Open-Source Advocate </ hell by a penguin named "Tux"? _\_v
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GNUPG v0.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info finger gcrypt at ftp.guug.de
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the Gnupg-devel