Re: Making guile-gtk-1.2 stable?

[Andy Wingo]

On Wed, 24 Sep 2003, Marius Vollmer wrote:

> Andy Wingo <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> > Guile-gnome sounds fine to me, especially considering, as Kevin noted,
> > that the modules are (gnome foo).
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > Shall we change, then, and end the confusion once and for all?
> 
> Hmm, right now, simply "guile-gtk" seems also attractive to me.  It
> would fit the 'wrapper project' name as used on Savannah, the GNU web
> site, and most importantly, in the copyright assignment database.

Ah, thinking about this too much makes my head hurt. guile-gobject does
not express the fact that there are other bindings, so that needs to
change, probably. guile-gtk is more consistent with the web site et al,
and has name recognition, although guile-gnome probably encompasses the
aim of the project better. Maybe, given that GStreamer is also part of
Gnome and is hosted elsewhere, the name should be restricted somehow.

But when I make bindings for other gnome libraries, do they go in
separate source packages, or in guile-gtk? They would likely be separate
binary packages in Debian. It would be easier to keep them in the same
source package, though.

Bah! Bottom line I don't care too much. Maybe we can call it guile-gtk
for historical reasons, then note in the docs that it might be better
called guile-gnome due to its scope. Does that sound sane? I seem to be
pretty flexible on this subject ;)

Regards,

wingo.