[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: ITP: g-wrap -- Scripting interface generator for C

Thomas Bushnell BSG <tb@becket.net> writes:

> Andreas Rottmann <a.rottmann@gmx.at> 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
> sake.
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.

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

It's *GNU*/Linux dammit!

Reply to: