Re: ITP: g-wrap -- Scripting interface generator for C
Thomas Bushnell BSG <tb@becket.net> writes:
> Andreas Rottmann <a.rottmann@gmx.at> writes:
>
>> [CC'ed Thomas Bushnell, since he has filed an ITA on gwrapguile]
>>
>> cascardo@minaslivre.org writes:
>>
>>> Please, check the following bugs, rename or close them, however you prefer.
>>>
>>>
>>> 1) #242467: ITA: gwrapguile -- Tool for exporting C libraries into...
>>>
>>> 2) #263127: O: gwrapguile -- g-wrap: Tool for exporting C...
>>>
>> I prefer to have them open until GnuCash is built against G-Wrap 1.9.3
>> and the gwrapguile source package can be removed.
>
> I have, rather, taken over maintenance of the 1.3.4 gwrapguile package.
>
> I am not interested in maintaining a gnucash linked or built with
> guile-2 versions of things that are not supported by upstream. (I am
> correct, right, that the g-wrap to which you refer is a guile 2
> thingie?)
>
> gnucash is a guile-1 program. Many people think that every package
> should migrate to guile-2. They are right. The upstream gnucash
> developers are working on this as fast as they can.
>
I assume you mean GNOME 2, not guile-2.
To clarify the situation: I've included mininimal wrappers for GLib
that work with both GLib 1.x and GLib 2.x in G-Wrap, mainly to support
GnuCash. These wrappers are built against GLib 1.x, since currently
GnuCash/GNOME2 is not ready for prime-time, and GNOME2 programs
written in Guile should use the bindings of GLib in guile-gnome
anyway, since these are much more complete. When GnuCash/GNOME2
finally arrives, either G-Wrap has to build the GLib bindings against
GLib 2.x, or GnuCash has to switch to use guile-gnome.
So, we *can* finally get rid of gwrapguile, even before GnuCash/GNOME2
arrives.
Regards, Rotty
--
Andreas Rottmann | Rotty@ICQ | 118634484@ICQ | a.rottmann@gmx.at
http://yi.org/rotty | GnuPG Key: http://yi.org/rotty/gpg.asc
Fingerprint | DFB4 4EB4 78A4 5EEE 6219 F228 F92F CFC5 01FD 5B62
v2sw7MYChw5pr5OFma7u7Lw2m5g/l7Di6e6t5BSb7en6g3/5HZa2Xs6MSr1/2p7 hackerkey.com
Any technology not indistinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
-- Terry Pratchett
Reply to: