Re: A GNOME Bindings release set?

[James Henstridge <james daa com au>]

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/