Re: Proposed Modules, My Take

[Sean Middleditch <elanthis awesomeplay com>]

On Wed, 2005-01-19 at 19:53 +0000, Mike Hearn wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 11:16:45 -0500, Sean Middleditch wrote:
> > If a module isn't going to offer a stable ABI throughout the major GNOME
> > release series then it doesn't belong anywhere except the Desktop
> > release.
> 
> I think the problem here is that people assume the bindings operate under
> the same rules as the developer platform - that is what makes intuitive
> sense. After all Apple don't say "Cocoa is stable unless you use Java" -
> the Java bindings operate under the same rules as the 'native' Objective-C
> APIs do.

According to this:
http://developer.gnome.org/dotplan/bindings/rules.html

New versions must not break ABI.  While PyGTK itself does not break, it
does heavily depend on the ABI of Python and that *does* break.  It's
like saying it's alright if GTK+ is stable but glib can be unstable.
Unless each release of GNOME has a standard Python version that must be
available with that release, PyGTK would be breaking the spirit of the
rules, if not the exact letter of the rules.

> 
> In GNOMEs case though the bindings release is shipped in such a way that
> apps are expected to depend on it and dynamically link to it (whether by
> 'import pygtk' lines or DT_NEEDED entries or whatever), yet it's not
> stable like the developer release is, despite appearing to
> work in the same way.
> 
> thanks -mike
> 
> _______________________________________________
> desktop-devel-list mailing list
> desktop-devel-list gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
>