Re: A GNOME Bindings release set?
- From: James Henstridge <james daa com au>
- To: Murray Cumming Comneon com
- Cc: charlet ACT-Europe FR, mkestner ximian com, language-bindings gnome org, release-team gnome org
- Subject: Re: A GNOME Bindings release set?
- Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 18:02:22 +0800
On 25/11/2003 4:47 PM, Murray Cumming Comneon com wrote:
I believe this issue is actually very painful for gnome libs
themselves, so let's not make it more painful.
It has been done intentionally for GNOME itself, more now than in the past,
in order to allow moduarity - to allow bugfix releases of small parts
without bundling the new bugs of other parts, and to allow people.
I am not sure that the reasons for splitting the Gnome platform
libraries into smaller tarballs all apply here. From my memory, the
main reason was that we had separate maintainers for different parts of
gnome-libs, so coordination between maintainers was required whenever a
gnome-libs tarball was going to be created. This would cause problems
if there was any half finished work in any of the libraries at the time
of the release.
In the case of most of the bindings, the tarballs are already split
along maintainer boundaries -- for most bindings, there is one person
resposible for the libgnome, libgnomeui, libbonobo, and libbonoboui
bindings. In the case of the Python bindings, there are a number of
other tarballs that build on top of the stuff I release, maintained by
other people.
I do agree that some separation is a good idea (eg. pygtk is separate
from gnome-python, and has been ported to Windows while gnome-python
hasn't), but not necessarily to the granularity that the Gnome platform
libraries have been.
Unless you have some better reasons, could we leave this requirement
out? It would be a shame if the bindings release set can't be done
because of something like this.
James.
--
Email: james daa com au
WWW: http://www.daa.com.au/~james/
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]