Re: Official .defs files

[Havoc Pennington <hp redhat com>]

Ariel Rios <ariel linuxppc org> writes:
> Isn't it better to have a module called gtk-defs since
> a release of new defs files may happen in shorter
> periods of time than the common Gtk version cycle.
> 

The disadvantage is that you have to get users to download and install
this tiny "gtk-defs" package to build your bindings. 

Do you really want to change the .defs file often? With several dozen
bindings, at least one will break with every change. It'd probably be
easier for binding authors to keep up if there were a relatively small
number of defs file releases.

Bindings can always ship with small hacks in their defs2binding script
to work around specific defs file screwups.

I think a stable defs file is more important than avoiding said small
hacks.

But, only MHO.

Havoc