Re: RFC: How to organize guile-gnome

[Andreas Rottmann]

Andy Wingo <address@hidden> writes:

> 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'm not really using it, but it's nice to see how great the impact of
my g-wrap changes on a 'third party' binding is. I want to use Guile
for MP3/OGG metadata munching based on gstreamer (-media-info) and the
upcoming GDA binding, however.

> > 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.
> 
I was thinking of the project here (i.e. website, distribution site,
source configuration management, ..) anyway.

> > 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.
> 
Hmm, what is the barrier? For basic support, one only needs sftp
access (for writing). It should definitly be possible to host the
central arch repository on savannah, from what I read out of the
ArchHosting page on www.gnuarch.org.

>    b) I don't want to increase barriers to development by people not
>       familiar with arch.
> 
The stuff I wrote about the CVS gateway. The CVS gateway could be
both-way, as well, but I hope that all guile-gnome developers will be
ok with using arch for write access.

>    I'd be OK with using arch if these two issues could be dealt with.
> 
Fine. I think (b) is not a problem at all, and regarding (a) I don't
quite know what kind(s) of access www.gnu.org provides.

Cheers, Andy
-- 
Andreas Rottmann