Re: Proposing module: PyGTK

[Mark McLoughlin <markmc redhat com>]

On Tue, 2004-11-02 at 09:27, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> <quote who="Mark McLoughlin">
> 
> >   1) The expectations we want to set to modules in the Desktop release -
> >      i.e. we want those modules to feel free to depend on pygtk, but not
> >      any of the other members of the bindings release.
> 
> >   2) The expectations we want to set to external developers - i.e. do we
> >      want the python binding to be "just another GNOME binding" or do
> >      we want it to enjoy a higher status above the other bindings?
> 
> > 	I think it all hinges on how we feel about (2) - if the python binding
> > should be an officially way to write against the GNOME platform and
> > "more blessed" than the other bindings, then I think it belongs in the
> > Platform release set. If not, it should stay in the Bindings release
> > set.
> > 
> > 	(1) doesn't matter all that much - if, from (2), it should stay in the
> > Bindings release set, then we can fudge it just like you say ... i.e.
> > that Desktop modules can depend on pygtk but not the other bindings or
> > that pygtk be listed in the Desktop release set too.
> 
> Hrm, see, I think that (2) doesn't matter all that much, because we already
> make our commitment to external developers clear -> the Bindings suite is
> meant to be stable enough that they can rely on it for their applications.

	I got the impression from Johan on irc that it was (2) he cared about -
maybe I got it arseways. But I would agree that having it in the
Bindings release should be enough.

> (1) seems to be where things are unclear. Saying that "Desktop modules can
> use pygtk, which is in the Bindings suite" seems pretty wishy-washy to me,
> compared to the clarity of the Platform and Desktop suites.

	Sure, its a bit bleh but its not a huge deal IMHO ...

Cheers,
Mark.