Re: Cooperating on .defs API specifications

[Murray Cumming <murrayc murrayc com>]

On Tue, 2004-03-30 at 22:58, Andreas Rottmann wrote:
> Murray Cumming <murrayc murrayc com> writes:
> 
> > On Tue, 2004-03-30 at 21:52, Andreas Rottmann wrote:
> >> Owen Taylor <otaylor redhat com> writes:
> >> 
> >> > I think we'd actually open to include .defs with the modules themselves;
> >> > the downside being, of course, that you don't get updated defs until
> >> > the module releases a new version.
> >> >
> >> > The other downside is that it is easy for the GTK+ version to get
> >> > out of date if people aren't careful about putting back their changes
> >> > to the canonical version ... 
> >> >
> >> I think would be not a good idea, for the reasons you already
> >> mentioned. The thing is: the GTK+ people, (or other module authors),
> >> don't actually use the .defs, only the wrapper people do. IMHO, it
> >> makes much more sense to have them in their own package, maintained by
> >> the people who need them.
> >
> > Having GTK+ defs in GTK+ will work if that part of GTK+ has a
> > maintainer, so that changes can be made instantly. It might not be
> > possible for all other modules, but it doesn't need to be.
> >
> I'll go ahead and create the "defs" Arch package anyway, when the time
> for the guile-gobject split comes, anyway. I think there should be a
> phasis of review by all people involved, resulting in fixes and
> enhancments, befor this goes "upstream".

I encourage you to use the gtkmm .defs (split into several .defs files)
as a starting point, because they are probably the most up-to-date.

-- 
Murray Cumming
www.murrayc.com
murrayc murrayc com