Re: RFC: split gtk2-perl-xs

[Ross McFarland <rwmcfa1 neces com>]

On Sat, 2003-04-26 at 07:04, goran kirra net wrote:

> 1. Wouldn't it easier to maintain if it is split the module?
>    Bounderies for the splitting would be beteen wrapping of libraries
>    which is indently maintain. User which has not got gnome etc and only 
>    needs gtk+ (like windows user) would have to walk truough a complicated build process.

as far as i can tell right now modules don't build unless you have their
dependencies resolved. i.e. if you don't have gnome or GtkSpell
installed and in your pkg-config path, then it doesn't try to build that
subdir. this is how gtk-perl works. i don't see the problem with
downloading them as one and building if deps are met. on one of my
systems right now i don't have libgnomeui-dev installed and that portion
of the tree doesn't build on it. so you don't have to install gnome if
you just want gtk's mappings.

beyond that, there's a pretty high dependency of most of the modules off
of one another (or at least off of G's code.) separating them could
create versioning problems (granted cpan could deal with them, but for
people who install from source it would suck to have to grab 10
different modules if you wanted to upgrade to a new Gnome, which
required a new G, which made you need to grab all new children of G.
you'd probably be better off releasing them as one. 

if everything is one package you'd wouldn't have to deal with bugs due
to different version modules inter-working. if all of them are the same
age it would be much easier to assure quality.

> 2. G::<namespace>: I think this would be hard to get accepted in CPAN since what G:: reference
>    hardly is clear to people not into Gtk+/Gnome. Either we should change it to GLib:: or
>    just move it into Gtk2:: since the functionality in GObject et al is not especially useful
>    to perlprogrammers outside to Gtk+ context.

i don't mind a rename for clarity/name-space sake, but i don't like the
idea of moving it under gtk. it don't like the idea of a parent being
under the child. 

these are, of course, only my opinions.

-rm