[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Bundling G-Wrap
Re: Bundling G-Wrap
Fri, 09 Jul 2004 17:58:43 +0200
Gnus/5.1002 (Gnus v5.10.2) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux)
address@hidden (Linas Vepstas) writes:
> On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 04:22:59PM +0200, Andreas Rottmann was heard to
>> [ CC'ing g-wrap-dev, guile-gtk-general. The discussion is about that
>> since G-Wrap now comes without GLib bindings, the GnuCash folks have a
>> dependency more, which they seem utterly opposed to ]
> No, don't misunderstand/misquote on purpose. You know what this is about.
Sorry, but this is about what I understood.
>> > My take on this? g-wrap should probably be a standard part of guile,
>> > or swig, or something, and not a stand-alone package.
> The complaint was about the proliferation of package dependencies
> and the linux version of the old microsoft 'dll hell'. Any given
> day of the week, the mailing lists are dominated by discussion of
> people who cannot successfully build/install gnucash. That is just
> plain wrong. People should be talking about something else, and not
> the difficulty of install.
> The problem is the proliferation of packages that are poorly maintained
> and don't have properly defined pkg-config or automake macros or
> whatever, or are growing oldy/moldy/rancid due to lack of maintainer
> I beleive that the problem could be solved by merging smaller packages
> into bigger ones, where maintainers could share the work of upkeep.
>> - bundling it with Guile: would mean _way_ too slow releases
> Which is HIGHLY PREFERABLE to NO RELEASES which is what g-wrap has had
> for 3-4 years now.
Indeed, but I plan to do active development and releases on
G-Wrap. Please note that I'm responsible for G-Wrap jsut for a short
> G-Wrap is broken, busted and no one is maintaining
> it, and it basically just sucks because of this, and it is the
> leading #1 poster child for everything that can possibly go wrong
> with an independent package release.
I'm willing to change this.
> I'd like to avoid re-living all of the mistakes of the past; the
> problem of packaging being the biggest.
> (Surely you don't want to hear how 1.3.4 is incompatible with 1.3.1?
Well, I mostly care about the rewritten G-Wrap (1.9.x series). Since
that isn't a drop-in replacement for 1.3.4,
> or that the package is (was?) identified as "g-warp" on debian ...
Currently, we have:
% apt-cache search g-wrap
libgwrapguile-dev - Development package for libgwrapguile1
libgwrapguile1 - g-wrap: Tool for exporting C libraries into Scheme interpreters
Packages of g-wrap 1.9.0 are in preparation (I'll take over Debian
maintainership, too), the main package of which will be named g-wrap
> a clever naming twist that makes it impossible to find, or the guile
> warnings that it currently spews?)
Well, a 1.4.0 release is in the line, which will fix these.
Andreas Rottmann | address@hidden | address@hidden | address@hidden
http://yi.org/rotty | GnuPG Key: http://yi.org/rotty/gpg.asc
Fingerprint | DFB4 4EB4 78A4 5EEE 6219 F228 F92F CFC5 01FD 5B62
Latein ist das humanoide Äquivalent zu Fortran.
-- Alexander Bartolich in at.linux