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

[Sander Vesik <sander_traveling yahoo co uk>]

Luis Villa wrote:
> 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.

Would this be a 'gnome desktop' or 'gnome platform' type of release? That 
is - are two consequtive releases of 'gnome-bindings' supposed to be 100% 
api/abi compatible? i'm not sure if the bindings have seen enough use to 
commit themselves to such

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