Re: GNOME Platform Bindings - first schedule date

[muppet <scott asofyet org>]

On Monday, January 5, 2004, at 04:37 PM, Murray Cumming Comneon com 
wrote:

> For perl, in case I have not mentioned these points before:

we've been on the topic, but i don't think we finished.  sorry if i'm 
repeating myself.


> 1. It would be nice if you used GTK+ 2.3- and GNOME 2.5-like version
> numbers:
> http://developer.gnome.org/dotplan/bindings/rules.html#VersionNumbers

as discussed before, we can't use 3-part version numbers for a variety 
of reasons, all perl-related.

on another note, i don't actually think synchronized numbering is a 
good idea.  i didn't speak up before because it's not a mandatory 
requirement, and some people like the aesthetic of numbers lining up, 
but i disagree on philosophical grounds.  very simply put, the target 
library and binding versions are unrelated, and synchronizing them 
falsely implies a level of synchronization that is not guaranteed.  for 
the Perl bindings in particular, synchronizing the version numbers 
would further exacerbate the confusion on tarball names.


> 2. Please do not upload the perl binding modules to ftp.gnome.org. The
> filenames would create too much confusion.

for completeness -- it is possible to rename the tarballs, but it would 
only cause confusion, for someone attempting to patch and re-build the 
package would wind up creating a new package with a different name.

e.g., you download perl-Gtk2-x.yyz.tar.gz, unpack it, apply a patch, 
bump the version number in Gtk2.pm, and do "make dist" -- it creates 
Gtk2-x.yyz.tar.gz for you.

we used to rename the tarballs, but the users cried out in anguish, so 
we stopped.

also, every source on the web would have tarballs with the same name 
except gnome.org.



--
Brian: If i recall correctly, this is the physics department.
Chris: That explains all that gravity.
	-- Family Guy, "The Story on Page One"