Re: Moving Gtk2-Perl to GNOME infrastructure
- From: Olav Vitters <olav bkor dhs org>
- To: Torsten Schoenfeld <kaffeetisch gmx de>
- Cc: gnome-sysadmin gnome org, release-team gnome org
- Subject: Re: Moving Gtk2-Perl to GNOME infrastructure
- Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 18:38:50 +0200
On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 12:33:29PM +0200, Torsten Schoenfeld wrote:
> Let's get going on this again.
> Olav Vitters wrote:
> >> Is your preference against a gnome-perl repository set in stone? If so,
> >> how do you suggest we deal with the directories I mentioned in my
> >> previous mail? To recap: we have a few things in our repository that
> >> don't belong to one binding but rather to all of them:
> > Unsure. While this layout might make sense from the possibilities of
> > SVN; there will be some switch in future. Further, our infra isn't setup
> > to support anything other than /branches,/trunk,/tags.
> OK, I give in. Let's use separate SVN directories for every module:
> perl-Cairo *
> perl-ExtUtils-Depends *
> perl-ExtUtils-PkgConfig *
> perl-GStreamer *
> perl-GStreamer-GConf *
> perl-GStreamer-Interfaces *
> The question then is what to do about the modules marked with *.
> - perl-Cairo and perl-GStreamer and friends are bindings for stuff on the
> freedesktop infrastructure. I'd still like to have them in the same place as
> the rest.
> - perl-ExtUtils-Depends and perl-ExtUtils-PkgConfig are build-time helper
> modules that are required by every module, so I'd like to keep them in the
> same place as well.
I'm fine with having those in SVN.
> >> docs/ - generic documentation applying to all our bindings
> >> helpers/ - helper programs to aid developing bindings
Regarding docs: How are these written? Could they be put on
library.gnome.org (requires tarballs, supports plain HTML, docbook,
gtk-doc.. IIRC)? Could perhaps do a perl-docs 'fake' tarball.
> We'll just host those on the website. They don't have to be version-controlled.
> >> Makefile - a Makefile to build all or a subset of our bindings
> Could be superseded by a jhbuild module set.
> What do you think?
Good idea. Only wonder about the documentation bit.
] [Thread Prev