Re: Trying to reach consensus for the proposed modules

On 1/11/06, Steve Frécinaux <nudrema gmail com> wrote:
>  >  + deskbar-applet: most people were okay, some people thought it was
>  > eating too much memory. I'd say consensus was "accept", but there's the
>  > issue that it depends on gnome-python-extras, which is not in the
>  > bindings. What should be done here?
> gedit 2.13.x also depends on g-p-e, for the new python plugins (like the
> Snippets Plugin [1]).
> It requires at least the gtksourceview module, and perhaps the
> gnome-print bindings (I'm not sure).

Well, looks like we definitely have a mess to sort out.  (From a quick
glance at gedit's, it looks like it can be removed with a
simple switch (though my auto-fu sucks so someone else would need to
verify).  If we don't get this straightened out, the default would
need to change to have it not included by default.)

The previous consensus and agreement was that desktop modules could
depend upon python bindings found in the bindings release set. 
gnome-python-extras isn't part of that set.  As pointed out in
Murray's email, it's not suitable for that set either.  So we need to
determine what we want to do and reach consensus on this point as
well.  A variety of options exist:
  - don't allow desktop modules to depend on gnome-python-extras,
unless they do so optionally (the state of things if we can't reach a
consensus or no one bothers to drive issue to try to get one)
  - agree that gnome-python-extras is okay for desktop modules to
depend on; means one of the following as far as I can tell
    (a) propose gnome-python-extras for the desktop release and have it accepted
    (b) create an alternate release set, perhaps as a subset of
bindings but which has a different set of rules that's more like the
desktop release set, and have gnome-python-extras proposed and
accepted for it
    (c) allow gnome-python-extras to be a blessed external dependency

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]