Re: gnome-db2

[Rodrigo Moya <rodrigo linuxave net>]

Akira TAGOH wrote:
> 
> >>>>> 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.
> 
yes, the idea is to separate them neatly. So, libgda is included in
gnome-db2 CVS just to make things easier for people, but when doing
'make dist' and packages, they will be separated. That's what we said,
isn't that?