> > > That would seem to be a problem. It is a fairly arbitrary > > > imposition, so an unnecessary use (waste) of time in the > longer term. > > > > I've explained the reasons at length. But to summarise: We > don't put > > unstable stuff in the GNOME Platform so we won't put > unstable stuff in > > the GNOME Platform Bindings. And we won't put stuff in the GNOME > > Platform Bindings if it isn't a binding for the GNOME Platform. > > Help me out here: > > - Does GTK+ constitute a part of the GNOME Platform? If so, then I > assume PyGTK would constitute a part of the Platform Bindings.
Yes, of course, if pyGtk wraps GTK+ and not also something that is not part of the GNOME Platform. > - What does "stable" mean? None of the code AFAIK is under heavy > development, so if the only criteria for splitting > packages is not > being "in-development" [which is a bit bogus] then It's about _API_ and _ABI_ stability: http://developer.gnome.org/dotplan/bindings/rules.html#ApiFreezeMeaning > - Is there a requirement of completeness? Must the > bindings cover a > certain minimum percentage of the original platform library? No, but you should _try_. Obviously nobody can enforce how much you try. > - As a summarizing statement, how strict are we going to > be towards > package splits? Do you forsee PyGTK shipping more than two > packages (pygtk and gnome-python) as part of the bindings? Yes. See "What should be wrapped" here: http://developer.gnome.org/dotplan/bindings/rules.html But you might need to do an extra split if gnome-python currently contains anything that has unstable API or that wraps something that is not in the GNOME Platform. > > > My main disappointment in the "proposal" at the moment is > > > that whilst it should still be in proposal status it is being > > > pitched like a done deal. > > > > I have given everybody time to respond, and received the explicit > > blessing of the GNOME Board and release team, but we can't wait > > forever. The schedule > > Why was it not announced here earlier? It was announced on language-bindings. All language bindings maintainers are on that mailing list, and the pygtk maintainer knew about it from the beginning. It was also announced on dekstop-devel and gnomedesktop (and osnews, and my blog, but they are silly). I am chasing you on your own list as a favour to you. > > must start and releases must be made. I have given pygtk > extra time by > > creating a December 22nd deadline for tarball submissions. > > Yes, it gives us just enough time to package the tarballs and > fill the stockings with bug reports <wink> Yes, we just need the tarballs that the gnome-python maintainers want to put on the schedule. The more difficult stuff happens later: http://www.gnome.org/start/2.5/bindings/ Murray Cumming www.murrayc.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ pygtk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.daa.com.au/mailman/listinfo/pygtk Read the PyGTK FAQ: http://www.async.com.br/faq/pygtk/
