Re: ITP: g-wrap -- Scripting interface generator for C
- To: Thomas Bushnell BSG <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Cc: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: ITP: g-wrap -- Scripting interface generator for C
- From: Andreas Rottmann <email@example.com>
- Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2005 10:34:20 +0200
- Message-id: <[🔎] firstname.lastname@example.org>
- In-reply-to: <email@example.com> (Thomas Bushnell's message of "Fri, 30 Sep 2005 10:53:10 -0700")
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20041209162830.GG928@cascardo.localdomain> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Thomas Bushnell BSG <email@example.com> writes:
> Andreas Rottmann <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> 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.
> It is simply not important to me to "get rid of things" for its own
Well, G-Wrap 1.3 has no upstream anymore, and its functionality is
replicated in G-Wrap 1.9 - you know, I didn't add the compatibility
layer for the fun of it.
> I don't want to make potentionally destabilizing changes, and I
> *especially* don't want to make changes like this which result in
> upstream saying "you're totally on your own now."
Does upstream actually say that? I've been talking with Derek Atkins
(warlord) on IRC, and from what I gathered, they are trying to use
G-Wrap 1.9, and mostly suceeding modulo a few buglets, all of which
should be fixed in the Debian packaging.
> I'm happy maintaining gwrapguile right now. It's extremely stable and
> isn't causing any problems that I know of.
Of course GnuCash is your package, and you are free to maintain it as
you like; I was merely suggesting that switching to G-Wrap 1.9 should
be a viable option.
Andreas Rottmann | Rotty@ICQ | 118634484@ICQ | email@example.com
http://yi.org/rotty | GnuPG Key: http://yi.org/rotty/gpg.asc
Fingerprint | DFB4 4EB4 78A4 5EEE 6219 F228 F92F CFC5 01FD 5B62
It's *GNU*/Linux dammit!