Re: Proposing gnome-python for inclusion in GNOME Bindings

[Murray Cumming <murrayc murrayc com>]

On Tue, 2004-10-12 at 20:53 +0100, Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro wrote:
> Ter, 2004-10-12 �20:48 +0200, Murray Cumming escreveu:
> > On Mon, 2004-10-11 at 16:33 +0100, Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro wrote:
> > >   I'd like to propose gnome-python for inclusion in Gnome Bindings.  For
> > > those who don't know, gnome-python offers convenient
> > > wrappers for most APIs in GNOME Developer Platform, including the
> > > following modules:
> > > 
> > >         gnome, gnome.ui, gnome.canvas, gnome.vfs
> > >         gconf
> > >         bonobo, bonobo.activation, bonobo.ui
[snip]
> This reminds me, the bonobo and gnome.vfs bindings require pyorbit.  But
> pyorbit is James Henstridge's thing (well, actually everything pyxxx is
> really james' thing, but...:).  I volunteered to maintain gnome-python,
> not pyorbit.
> 
>   James, any thoughts about this?  Would you like to:
> 	a) propose pyorbit to gnome bindings and keep maintaining it;
> 	b) propose pyorbit but request a volunteer to maintain;
> 	c) none of the above.
>   I suppose I could maintain pyorbit too, if necessary to include it in
> gnome bindings, and no one better wants the role. 

This does need to be resolved before gnome-python becomes an official
GNOME (Platform Bindings) module .

[snip]
> > > It also has bindings for some desktop modules:
> > > 
> > >         gtkhtml2
> > >         gnome.applet
> > >         nautilus
> > >         gnomeprint, gnomeprint.ui
> > 
> > These can not be API-stable because the underlying C libraries are not
> > yet API- or ABI-stable. Nor are they in the GNOME Platform, so they
> > don't make sense for GNOME Platform Bindings.
> > 
> > What happened to your plan to split gnome-python up into more modular
> > parts? It's well known that I am against including half-stable modules
> > in GNOME Platform Bindings, because I want to say simply "all of these
> > modules are API-stable and ABI-stable". None of the GNOME Platform
> > modules contain large unstable API, for instance.
> 
>   Nothing happened to that plan.  We need to discuss in pygtk list the
> exact form of splitting.  What I would prefer is to split desktop
> modules away from gnome-python and keep only developer platform modules.

I believe that at least that is necessary, so I'll withhold my approval
until that's been done. But my approval shouldn't count for much - more
GNOME developers should respond to this thread.

[snip]

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