On Sun, 2007-03-04 at 19:19 +0100, Murray Cumming wrote: > On Sun, 2007-03-04 at 17:14 +0100, Rodrigo Moya wrote: > > On Sat, 2007-03-03 at 16:48 +0100, Murray Cumming wrote: > > > On Sat, 2007-03-03 at 16:34 +0100, Murray Cumming wrote: > > > > Why is gda-sharp part of libgda? This just complicates the build and > > > > will be a problem for release management of both modules in the future. > > > > > > If there are no objections, if the gda-sharp build problems are not > > > fixed by the time I try to do another release, I will remove the > > > gda-sharp bindings. They can be revived in a separate module. > > > > > they were moved from gtk# because they didn't want them there :-( And > > since they are mostly automatic, I accepted to have them in > > libgda/libgnomedb. But if the build problems can't be easily fixed, I > > would suggest to disable them by default, and have a > > --enable-mono-bindings for people to enable them? > > The problems are: > a) even getting them into the tarball so that people can build them. > b) making life difficult for distro packagers, who have to split them > into two binary packages. > c) confused API stability. If libgda is stable, should I think that > gda-sharp is stable. No, but I might make that mistake. > d) interferring schedules. Fixes for gda-sharp will have to wait for a > release of libgda. > > This has never worked for any other GNOME module, and it won't work for > libgda. > isn't there a gnome-extras (or similar) think in GTK#? If so, we could propose our bindings to be there. I say this because moving them to their own module will mean letting them die, since nobody maintains them. -- Rodrigo Moya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
_______________________________________________ gnome-db-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-db-list
