Re: RFC: split gtk2-perl-xs

[Ross McFarland <rwmcfa1 neces com>]

On Sun, 2003-04-27 at 23:51, muppet wrote:

> > A 2nd argument is if gnome and spell goes in everything would just
> > as well, gal, gail, eel, camel, print, printui, etc etc
> > A big monolith makes maintenence difficult and release process.
>
> i wanted to have stuff like Gnome2, GnomePrint2, and even GtkSpell in
> the tree to work out how to chain modules together, and also to have
> examples of how to create your own extension based on Glib/Gtk.  nothing
> says they have to stay there.  as i've said in the past, i don't even
> write gnome applications; my only interest is in ensuring that they are
> possible and easy to create.

they might as well stay in one dev tree regardless of how they are
released. 


> > moving G:: -> GLib:: in CVS is a minor problem,
> > just matter of a 
> > # rm -f GLib2; ln -sf G GLib2
> > at a strategic point in Makefile.PL
>
> do you mean renaming in the build tree and leaving the name unchanged on
> the CVS server?

i remember reading something on sourceforge about asking the sys admins
to do operations on the cvsroots if need be. in such a case i would
definitely say that need be. if the name is changed to Glib (or
whatever) they could easily just change the directory name in the
cvsroot and then we could follow along and make the necessary changes to
code. or if you didn't care about keeping past revisions under each of
the G files, cvs delete/add all of the files to a new directory. i
really don't like the idea of changing a directory name by adding a step
to the build process.

-rm