Re: Proposing module: PyGTK

[Mikael Hallendal <micke imendio com>]

Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> On Mon, 2004-11-01 at 22:18, Jeff Waugh wrote:

> > So should we list pygtk in Desktop and Bindings? Kinda ugly, but doable.
> > 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? Should we embrace the idea that the Bindings
> > suite is equivalent to the Platform, and we should accept dependencies on
> > any of these bindings in the Desktop release?
>
> 	Well, I think there's two sides to this:
>
>   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 that looking at a longer term it would also be very interesting 
to make large parts of the desktop scriptable by Python, to be able to 
control behaviour, make automatic scripts for doing some work you 
currently do by clicking around etc.

What is the exact relation between the bindings release and the 
desktop/platform release? Tightly integrating Python in the desktop 
would effectively mean that the desktop depends on the python gtk bindings.

Also, as a third party developer having Pygtk in the desktop would make 
a difference to me when I was chosing language to use for my 
application. Since I could then count on every GNOME desktop to have the 
bindings, rather than having an extra dependency to bug users with...

Just some thoughts that might have already been taken care of in another 
thread.

Best Regards,
  Mikael Hallendal

--
Imendio AB, http://www.imendio.com/