Re: RFC: How to organize guile-gnome

[Andy Wingo]

On Wed, 03 Dec 2003, Andreas Rottmann wrote:

> Hi!
> 
> [ gst-guile note: I just finished getting gst-guile compile and work
>   (well, at least vorbisplay.scm does) with the g-wrap--rotty--0.2
>   branch. I made a few fixes wrt. gstreamer 0.7.2 (API breakage) on
>   the way. The code is available in the gst-guile--rotty--0.1
>   branch. ]

Hm, just finished those updates, and some more. One of the problems with
itermittent internet. But I'm super-pleased you're using it, I think
you're the first one :)

> I wonder how we best should organize the guile-gnome project,
> considering the following:
> 
> 1) All projects providing GNOME (i.e. GObject-based) bindings will
>   share some build infrastructure

The build infrastructure is installed, so this isn't really that big of
a deal. It needs to be installed to support third-party bindings.

> 2) According to Murray's mail to address@hidden, the developer
>    platform and stuff not part of it should/must be packaged
>    independently (this applies to my libgda bindings, for instance).

A valid point.

> 3) It would be good IMHO for guile-gnome to be a one-stop shop for
>    *all* GNOME related bindings; this would include gstreamer.

As a project, yes I agree -- perhaps they will not all be packaged in
the same source, but ok.

> The above has led me to the conclusion that we need a setup for
> dealing with the above. That could either be CVS modules (I think they
> do something like this) or arch metaprojects (which I'd favor).

1) I made a CVS module like this in gstreamer, called gst-all. The
   tricky thing is to get the auto* correct.

2) I read the arch tutorial. I like it. My only concern with using arch
   is that

   a) supporting it on www.gnu.org is probably not possible -- dunno what
      to do about this.

   b) I don't want to increase barriers to development by people not
      familiar with arch.

   I'd be OK with using arch if these two issues could be dealt with.

Regards,

wingo.