Re: [gnome-db] Separate mono bindings?

[Rodrigo Moya <rodrigo gnome-db org>]

On Sun, 2007-03-04 at 19:19 +0100, Murray Cumming wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-03-04 at 17:14 +0100, Rodrigo Moya wrote:
> > On Sat, 2007-03-03 at 16:48 +0100, Murray Cumming wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2007-03-03 at 16:34 +0100, Murray Cumming wrote:
> > > > Why is gda-sharp part of libgda? This just complicates the build and
> > > > will be a problem for release management of both modules in the future.
> > > 
> > > If there are no objections, if the gda-sharp build problems are not
> > > fixed by the time I try to do another release, I will remove the
> > > gda-sharp bindings. They can be revived in a separate module.
> > > 
> > they were moved from gtk# because they didn't want them there :-( And
> > since they are mostly automatic, I accepted to have them in
> > libgda/libgnomedb. But if the build problems can't be easily fixed, I
> > would suggest to disable them by default, and have a
> > --enable-mono-bindings for people to enable them?
> 
> The problems are: 
> a) even getting them into the tarball so that people can build them.
> b) making life difficult for distro packagers, who have to split them
> into two binary packages.
> c) confused API stability. If libgda is stable, should I think that
> gda-sharp is stable. No, but I might make that mistake.
> d) interferring schedules. Fixes for gda-sharp will have to wait for a
> release of libgda.
> 
> This has never worked for any other GNOME module, and it won't work for
> libgda.
> 
isn't there a gnome-extras (or similar) think in GTK#? If so, we could
propose our bindings to be there. I say this because moving them to
their own module will mean letting them die, since nobody maintains
them.
-- 
Rodrigo Moya <rodrigo gnome-db org>