[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: GNOME: names for bindings meta packages wanted
On Sat, Nov 08, 2008 at 07:42:28AM -0500, Greg Troxel wrote:
> OK - I agree it's good to follow upstream. Related to my 'base'
> complaint earlier, perhaps I should file that upstream.
Fine with me :)
> So I guess the key question is whether it's better to have
> gnome-bindings-foo and then a few foo-gnome-bindings, or whether we
> should flip all of them to be foo-gnome-bindings.
> There is also guile-gnome, which I pretend to maintain but haven't
> recently, and I think it's the official guile binding.
> For python, apparently upstream calls in gnome-python, and we call it
> py-gnome2 currently. From x11/py-gnome2/DESCR:
> The gnome-python package contains the source packages for the Python
> bindings for GNOME called PyGNOME.
> PyGNOME is an extension module for Python that provides access to the
> base GNOME libraries, so you have access to more widgets, a simple
> configuration interface, and metadata support.
> So do we need '-bindings' in the package name?
There's one difference between these two:
guile-gnome has one tarball and builds stuff itself, while the new
bindings packages would just be meta-pkgs depending on separate
existing packages (in the python case, py-gnome2, py-gobject, py-gtk2,
py-ORBit). And upstream calls the set "bindings", that's why I'd
prefer to keep that part of the name.
Since the existing perl and python packages already have a p5/py
prefix, I think it would be good to follow this in the meta package
case and be slightly inconsistent in the naming.
Main Index |
Thread Index |