Re: Proposing module: PyGTK

[Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller <uraeus gnome org>]

I guess I am answering to the thread in general more than Jeff's mail in
particular with this mail. Anyway I guess what we truly need to decide
is what we can accept to while keeping GNOME maintainable. What we
really want to avoid is a situation like we had with Sawfish, where the
original author leaves and we have hell finding maintainer due to it
using a small language. 

Which means I guess that Python and C++ for instance is acceptable to
depend on as we have large groups of people involved using and knowing
them. A bit more uncertain about Perl and Java (as in java-gnome, not
java the platform). Other stuff like Ruby, Lisp/Scheme, PHP, Haskell and
so on is probably a no, even if they are or get into the bindings
release at some point. C# and Mono is of course a completly different
discussion at it brings in a lot more than just a language :)

Christian

On Tue, 2004-11-02 at 20:27 +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> <quote who="Mark McLoughlin">
> 
> >   1) The expectations we want to set to modules in the Desktop release -
> >      i.e. we want those modules to feel free to depend on pygtk, but not
> >      any of the other members of the bindings release.
> 
> >   2) The expectations we want to set to external developers - i.e. do we
> >      want the python binding to be "just another GNOME binding" or do
> >      we want it to enjoy a higher status above the other bindings?
> 
> > 	I think it all hinges on how we feel about (2) - if the python binding
> > should be an officially way to write against the GNOME platform and
> > "more blessed" than the other bindings, then I think it belongs in the
> > Platform release set. If not, it should stay in the Bindings release
> > set.
> > 
> > 	(1) doesn't matter all that much - if, from (2), it should stay in the
> > Bindings release set, then we can fudge it just like you say ... i.e.
> > that Desktop modules can depend on pygtk but not the other bindings or
> > that pygtk be listed in the Desktop release set too.
> 
> Hrm, see, I think that (2) doesn't matter all that much, because we already
> make our commitment to external developers clear -> the Bindings suite is
> meant to be stable enough that they can rely on it for their applications.
> 
> (1) seems to be where things are unclear. Saying that "Desktop modules can
> use pygtk, which is in the Bindings suite" seems pretty wishy-washy to me,
> compared to the clarity of the Platform and Desktop suites.
> 
> - Jeff
>