Re: Release questions...

[Elijah Newren <newren gmail com>]

On 8/16/05, Murray Cumming <murrayc murrayc com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-08-08 at 23:05 -0400, Luis Villa wrote:
> > On 8/8/05, Elijah Newren <newren gmail com> wrote:
> > > - pyorbit is not listed among the modules in the bindings release.
> > > However, gnome-python is.  gnome-python can be built without pyorbit,
> > > but only certain parts of it.  The strange thing is that libgnomeui,
> > > libbonobo, libbonoboui are all listed as subparts of gnome-python that
> > > are in the bindings yet those are the parts that cannot be built
> > > without pyorbit.  Something is wrong there.    Should pyorbit be in
> > > the bindings release, or should the gnome-python set not list so many
> > > submodules on the wiki?
> >
> > Murray?
> 
> I roughly remember that we noticed last time too that we forgot this. I
> might have asked Johan Dahlin to propose it on d-d-l. I think it's
> stable (though possibly not very useful), as is the gnome-python stuff
> that uses it. Johan, I guess it would be best to just ignore this for
> now and retro-propose pyorbit for 2.13/14.

According to James, gnome-python isn't useful without pyorbit
(http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=313246#c3).  If that's
accurate (I guess that depends on your view of usefulness of
libgnomeui and bonobo* vs. libgnome gnomecanvas, gnomevfs, and gconf,
which I by no means would qualify as an expert to judge), then we
should probably either have pyorbit proposed for addition in 2.13/2.14
or else have gnome-python proposed for removal.