Re: Proposing module: PyGTK

[Jeff Waugh <jdub perkypants org>]

<quote who="Murray Cumming">

> Many some of the confusion here is based upon some idea that the whole
> Desktop release set should depend on the whole Platform release set and
> that it would somehow make sense for the whole Desktop release set to
> depend on the whole Bindings release set. I don't think that's a useful or
> helpful idea.

No, it's attempting to provide clarity as to what maintainers can depend on
or use. See next answer.

> > Should we just document the fact that pygtk is welcome as a non-optional
> > dependency (as some modules already optionally depend on it) in the
> > Desktop suite, and leave it at that?
> 
> Yes. That is what I have tried to do. What does it take to make that
> consenus even more clear? A GEP?

Well, as evidenced by the lack of take-up, and continued discussion, this
solution has not been clear (and thus *this* thread).

> Note that no such process was required for C++ in gnomemeeting and
> epiphany, or for perl in gnome-system-tools, though they don't use the
> bindings.

It's the bindings as dependencies that we're talking about here, and how we
define what is to be used in the other release sets or not, given that it is
no longer as clear as Platform || Desktop.

- Jeff

-- 
linux.conf.au 2005: Canberra, Australia         http://lca2005.linux.org.au/
 
                     What does an underage calf drink?
                          Long Island Iced Teats.