[EMAIL PROTECTED] (James Henstridge) wrote:
>
> On Thu, 29 Jun 2000, Deirdre Saoirse wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 20 Jun 2000, Aaron Optimizer Digulla wrote:
> >
> > > I, for example, cannot use gnome but I use pygtk. Therefore,
> > > I depend on an independend pygtk package (a .tar.gz to be precise).
> > > The reason for this is: I'm developing in a tight/secure environment
> > > and I must restrict myself to the smallest set of tools possible.
> >
> > Many of us are not enamored with the way gnome has been headed, so I also
> > prefer a gnome-less gtk option.
> >
>
> There will always be a gtk only pygtk. What I was wondering about was
> whether it would be a good idea to stop including pygtk inside
> gnome-python as well.
>
> James.
>
>
> --
> Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> WWW: http://www.daa.com.au/~james/
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> pygtk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.daa.com.au/mailman/listinfo/pygtk
Ok I think I already gave my answer. Yes, gnome-python should include
pygtk. I, for example, am writing an app that uses both. I'd prefer to
write all in gnomelibs, but they still don't have all the widgets I
need. Desperatly waiting for full bonobo and their bindings.
It's already pretty boring to ask users to have gnome-libs, gtk+. Adding
pygtk and pygnome would be bad IMHO. I also forgot I use gtkextra, and
their bindings, gtkhtml which means one needs to rebuild gnome-python at
least the pygnome part.....
Well to sum it all up. The less number of packages there are out there,
the happier I will be. Of course, this means pygtk, gnome-python(=pygtk,
pygnome) and any type of bindings you can muster.
While at it, would it be possible for a user to easily build bindings
for something like gtkextra if they use the new extension class
pygtk/pygnome. And I already know those have bindings, I am really
talking generic gtk/gnome-based libraries.
_______________________________________________
pygtk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.daa.com.au/mailman/listinfo/pygtk
