Re: LablGtk packages planned/done ?

[Sven LUTHER <luther@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr>]

On Thu, Nov 30, 2000 at 07:08:07PM +0100, Claudio Sacerdoti Coen wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2000 at 15:48:55 +0100, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> > you have a plain binding or an OO binding for them ? I am not familiar with
> > lablgtk internals, but in mlgtk, you have the Gtk/Glib/Gdk interface which
> > provide you non OO stubs, and then GtkObj that provides you with a more
> > typesafe OO wrapping on top of them.
> 
>  We have both the low-level (no OO) stubs and the object level.
>  The binding is really close to the one of the widgets provided with
>  LablGtk as optionals (es. XMHTML), but it is clean and stand-alone
>  (if you have just installed LablGtk).

Ok, ...

> > Should we package it all by itself ? is it a C widget with an ulterior ocaml
> > binding, or a plain ocaml widget ? Is the non ocaml version already packaged ?
> > should we package both together ?
> 
>  The widget is a C (C++ + C in fact) widget. We provided a debian package
>  for an old version, but we have not updated it so far and it was not
>  official. We provide also the RedHat package, but I prefer debian ;-)
>  It is under GPL.

You are not debian developper, what about providing support for debian
packaging in the upstream source, you just would have to add a debian dir in
the source which contains all the needed stuff. This would make it easier for
the developper.

Alternatively, you could become a debian developper yourself, and package the
stuff yourself, it is easy once everything is set up, and give you more
control over how you want to package things.

>  Then we have a OCaml binding (both stubs and object level) for a
>  small DOM interface built on libxml2. It is extremely simple.
>  No debian package yet. It will be put under GPL.
> 
>  Then we have the OCaml binding for the widget, that uses the DOM one.
>  The one for the 0.2.1 version will be released tomorrow. It will be
>  put under GPL.

MMM

What would you suggest, that we package everything in one package, or that we
have a standard (C) package, and another ocaml package containing both the
ocaml bindings, ... This would maybe be the best solution.

>  In these days I am at INRIA for a short period of time and the
>  author of the widget (I am the author of the binding) is in U.S.
>  for a comference. So our answers are not very quick. When back
>  in Bologna we will be both happy to contribute as much as possible.

No problem, anyway, there is no urgency, this will be for woody only, since
there can be no change to the stable release, so there is time still.

Friendly,

Sven Luther