RE: 2.4 Module List and Rationale (aka GEP10 and 11)

[Luis Villa <louie ximian com>]

On Tue, 2003-03-18 at 08:08, Murray Cumming Comneon com wrote:
> > On Thu, 2003-03-13 at 18:56, Luis Villa wrote:
> > > I've put up GEP 10, Standards for Inclusion in the GNOME , 
> > as well as 
> > > GEP 11, Module List for 2.4.
> > > 
> > > http://developer.gnome.org/gep/gep-10.html
> > > http://developer.gnome.org/gep/gep-11.html
> > 
> > Would it be possible to add pygtk to this?  It would be very 
> > cool if the Python bindings could be assumed in a GNOME 2.4 system.
> 
> 
> As much as I would like gtkmm to be officially included too, I think the
> policy is
> a) The Platform set is a supported development platform. - We probably can't
> demand the same API guarantees and schedule from pygtk as from the other
> GNOME libs. 

Yup. We should really, really discourage including devel libraries that
aren't guaranteed API stable, even though we probably can't rule it out
altogether.

> b) The Desktop set is about apps - we only include libs if one of the
> Desktop apps needs it. Just adding pygtk wouldn't "Improve overall desktop
> usability".

Yeah. Show me a killer /app/ that depends on pygtk, and we'll talk, but
pygtk by itself is out of the intended range for GEP 10 and 11. Of
course, you may disagree with GEP 10 on this point, but if so, ross,
let's talk about it in general terms- 'why should GEP 10 cover
libraries' and not 'why should GEP 11 include pygtk.'

Luis

P.S. FWIW, my personal sense is that we need a 'bindings release' or
something like that- have latest *mm, py*, and *# (and maybe gtk-perl,
since I hear that is making a comeback) grouped together, so that both
the bindings and GNOME can get maximum publicity and organization from
it.

_______________________________________________
gnome-hackers mailing list
gnome-hackers gnome org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-hackers