Re: Proposing module: PyGTK

[Jeff Waugh <jdub perkypants org>]

<quote who="Murray Cumming">

> The Bindings release exists so that applications can depend on the APIs
> that it offers.

Definitely agree here, particularly wrt API/ABI commitment.

> I think that we gain nothing if we move a module from Bindings to Desktop,
> but I think that it would undermine the Bindings release set. I am very
> much against it.

I somewhat disagree here. Should we let stuff in the Desktop suite depend on
anything in the Bindings suite, in the same way as the Platform suite? Then
we'd have to support stuff written in fifteen different languages, if the
Bindings suite is a rousing success.

We should have considered this issue more closely when setting up the
expectations of the Bindings suite. I think it's best bet is to represent a
selection of reliable, API/ABI compat bindings for third-party application
developers to choose from. So that's unrelated to our internal rules for
modules in each suite.

So should we list pygtk in Desktop and Bindings? Kinda ugly, but doable.
Should we just document the fact that pygtk is welcome as a non-optional
dependency (as some modules already optionally depend on it) in the Desktop
suite, and leave it at that? Should we embrace the idea that the Bindings
suite is equivalent to the Platform, and we should accept dependencies on
any of these bindings in the Desktop release?

Hmm. :-)

- Jeff

-- 
linux.conf.au 2005: Canberra, Australia         http://lca2005.linux.org.au/
 
    "The only people still using Microsoft IIS are those who don't even
                     know it's there." - Larry Ellison