Re: canvas example and fixes

[Andy Wingo]

Hi Andreas,

On Sun, 2004-05-30 at 19:22 +0200, Andreas Rottmann wrote:
> Andy Wingo <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> > Every category is a library -- it doesn't make sense to prefix things
> > with lib-. So it should be (gnome glade), for instance. The only odd
> > ones are libgnome and libgnomeui, which are (gnome gnome) and (gnome
> > gnome-ui) in my tree. Also, let's schemify names -- this one should be
> > (gnome canvas), gtksourceview should be (gnome source-view), etc.
> >
> > Objections?
> >
> I agree that the toplevel modules (e.g. (gnome gtk)) should not have
> any prefixes, but I followed the upstream module names for the
> generated modules in (gnome gw ...) and the actual category name. I'm
> not clear wether you meant to change this or only talk about toplevel
> modules.

Well, when I wrote I was referring to both. I hadn't really thought
about it too much, it seems we're defining our rules by doing ;) That's
OK though.

There are two possibilities. One is to make it the same as the toplevel
module name (i.e. (gnome canvas) -> (gnome gw canvas)). The other is to
make it the same as the upstream package. However, with the upstream
package name, you run into a problem: is it gtk, gtk+, or libgtk+?

I have a very slight preference towards the first option, but I don't
care very much, as long as we're consistent. If you can provide a
consistent mapping strategy, and add it to HACKING at the pkg--dev--0
top dir, then I'm cool with whatever strategy you come up with.

Perhaps there is a third way, though. No one should use the g-wrap
modules by themselves. Perhaps we should require that the scheme code be
done manually. That way (gnome gtk) dlopens the g-wrap library itself,
and there is no (gnome gw foo). Dunno, thoughts?

Peace,
-- 
Andy Wingo <address@hidden>