Re: Making guile-gtk-1.2 stable?

[Marius Vollmer]

Kevin Ryde <address@hidden> writes:

> Andy Wingo <address@hidden> writes:
>>
>> I'm not really a stakeholder here -- it would certainly be an asset,
>> though... for guile-gobject (which perhaps should be renamed
>> guile-gtk-2.0, for clarity?
>
> Only if it's going to be the guile-gtk going forwards I guess.

I would say that is the plan.  we _do_ have support for Glade, GtkGL,
and GdkPixbuf in guile-gtk-1.2, which is great, but I wouldn't say it
is important to cover all the APIs that come with Gnome.  That's the
job of guile-gobject, or guile-gtk-2.0.

I don't want to make decisions for guile-gobject, actually, although
I'm now the official maintainer.

I too think that the current naming of the guile-gtk projects and
subprojects is a bit confusing.  However, what is now called
guile-gobject should be given the 'best' absolute name since in the
end, guile-gtk-1.2 will go away.  So what could that name be?

Guile-gobject is technically correct, but people mind not recognize
immediately what it is.  Guile-gtk is more familiar, but seems
arbitrary when looking at what guile-gobject currently provides in
addition to Gtk (Pango, ...).  Guile-gnome seems to capture this
better.

So, what about "guile-gnome" or "guile-gnome-2"?  The old guile-gnome
is sufficiently dead now that we can take its name, I'd say.

-- 
GPG: D5D4E405 - 2F9B BCCC 8527 692A 04E3  331E FAF8 226A D5D4 E405