Re: Libchamplain and GNOME 3.0

[Łukasz Jernaś <deejay1 srem org>]

On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 12:38 AM, Jiří Techet <techet gmail com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 19:13, Łukasz Jernaś <deejay1 srem org> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 7:01 PM, Jiří Techet <techet gmail com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 18:34, Łukasz Jernaś <deejay1 srem org> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 6:29 PM, Jiří Techet <techet gmail com> wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 13:59, Łukasz Jernaś <deejay1 srem org> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Jiří Techet <techet gmail com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 20:39, Łukasz Jernaś <deejay1 srem org> wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>> Ah, yes, that's true. But in that case I would prefer not to have vala
>>>>> bindings enabled by default to reduce the amount of the necessary
>>>>> packages for libchamplain build (the remaining bindings aren't enabled
>>>>> by default either). Why do you need it to be enabled?
>>>>
>>>> Well, Vala is a blessed dependency of the GNOME desktop so I see no
>>>> reason why they shouldn't be shipped by default.
>>>> Personally I'd like the bindings to be there, because Emerillon's
>>>> plugins will heavily depend on them and it would be a bit unfortunate
>>>> if some distributions didn't ship them because they were off by
>>>> default...
>>>
>>> Wouldn't it be enough to put --enable-vala among
>>> DISTCHECK_CONFIGURE_FLAGS (actually it is already there). To be honest
>>> I'm not familiar with the process of distributions package creation so
>>> I don't know based on what they decide whether they enable some
>>> library features or not. Still I would prefer for libchamplain to be
>>> buildable by default with the minimal dependency set.
>>
>> It depends very much on the packager and the distro, "lazy" packagers
>> just go with whatever is the default, so no vala and no python
>> bindings and may not read any included README or configure --help.
>> DISTCHECK_CONFIGURE_FLAGS affect only how the tarball is generated
>> (AFAIR) Of course you're the maintainer here and I can work the
>> packaging out with downstreams if it''ll be necessary
>>
>>> By the way, how are the vala bindings distributed for other libraries?
>>> I tried to locate something with the .vapi extension in gtk and
>>> libsoup tarballs but I haven't found any - still the bindings exist
>>> for them.
>>
>> Those are distributed as part of Vala itself
>> (http://git.gnome.org/browse/vala/tree/vapi)
>
> How about distributing the vala bindings of libchamplain together with
> vala too? I don't know vala policy for bindings inclusion but from the
> list it seems there are also other than the core gnome libraries.

OK, I've exchanged a few sentenses  with Jürg Billeter (one of the
Vala maintainers) and he sees no reason, why the bindings could be
included in Vala itself. So now it's Tomaž turn ;)
If the Vala bindings can be automatically generated (which, for what I
know, can) then it's best to attach a patch against Vala in the
bugtracker, let me quote:
<juergbi> DeeJay1: ok, all the helper files needed for generation
should be added to the vala tree as well, then. probably best to open
a bug and attach a patch

If help is needed for the pack then feel free to ping me.

Regards,
-- 
Łukasz [DeeJay1] Jernaś