Re: gnome-db2

[Akira TAGOH <at ue-spacy com>]

>>>>> On Wed, 30 Aug 2000 00:36:13 +0200,
>>>>> "RM" == Rodrigo Moya <rodrigo@linuxave.net> wrote:

>> It is very simple, but curreytly gnome-db2 isn't simple.
>> 
RM> isn't it? what do you find 'difficult'?

No, is not 'difficult'.

>> However, you should divide it into perfection if you think
>> that libgda is the other modules which are not part of
>> gnome-db (not the meaning as working now).
>> if so, libgda in gnome-db2 is needless, and you has only to
>> add a check of libgda to configure. and, libgda must offer
>> the source package which is different from gnome-db.
>> 
RM> well, I've done it this way to make it easier for users downloading from
RM> CVS. But in fact, they are 2 separated projects, with the difference
RM> that libgda is totally independent, whereas gnome-db2 depends on libgda.

It is how source is distributed finally that I'm
concerned.
As you said, there is a thing of form that seems to be
current gnome-db2 to an existing CVS module. for example,
gnome-libs contains libart. do you hope for the form that
seems to be just gnome-libs?
usually, I think that they execute "make dist" when they
make tarball. gnome-libs includes libart hereby, but does
separate libgda in gnome-db? I can't suppose it in current
status.
If you split libgda and gnome-db and distribute it, I must
do ITP.


--
Akira TAGOH <at@ue-spacy.ccom>