Re: GNOME 2.26 Showstopper Review
Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro wrote: > > I don't think that gnome-python-desktop would need removing GtkPrint > > and gnomeVFS, it contains GnomePrint python bindings which cannot be > > removed and I cannot find any reference to GnomeVFS that needs to be > > removed. > > > > If I'm mistaking please correct me, cc'ing Gustavo for a better opinion. > > Some months later, in gnome-2.28.modules file in jhbuild those two > modules are still part of gnome 2.28. Someone please let me know if > this changes. They are still in the platform, as we had a API/ABI stability promise, but they are no longer used by any of our modules. > And anyway I am not going to bother to physically move code from one > module to another for just a couple of library bindings, just not worth > the trouble. > > I am, however, welcome to take other steps to deprecate the bindings: > 1. Add a python warning every time the deprecated module is imported; > 2. Not build the deprecatd bindings by default unless a > --enable-deprecated-bindings option is used. It would certainly help a lot, distribution could ship and have the warning displayed so developers notice, and people closer to GNOME and using jhbuild would get an ImportError and notice even harder. Cheers, Frederic ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: GNOME 2.26 Showstopper Review
On Mon, 2009-02-23 at 21:41 +0100, Gian Mario Tagliaretti wrote: > On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 8:43 PM, Andre Klapper wrote: > > Andre, > > > * http://live.gnome.org/GtkPrintPort : > > gnome-games, gnome-python-desktop, gnome-devel-docs (update) > > > > * http://live.gnome.org/GioPort : > > PATCHES: dasher > > TODO: gnome-python-desktop, gnome-utils/gsearchtool > > I don't think that gnome-python-desktop would need removing GtkPrint > and gnomeVFS, it contains GnomePrint python bindings which cannot be > removed and I cannot find any reference to GnomeVFS that needs to be > removed. > > If I'm mistaking please correct me, cc'ing Gustavo for a better opinion. Some months later, in gnome-2.28.modules file in jhbuild those two modules are still part of gnome 2.28. Someone please let me know if this changes. And anyway I am not going to bother to physically move code from one module to another for just a couple of library bindings, just not worth the trouble. I am, however, welcome to take other steps to deprecate the bindings: 1. Add a python warning every time the deprecated module is imported; 2. Not build the deprecatd bindings by default unless a --enable-deprecated-bindings option is used. -- Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro "The universe is always one step beyond logic" -- Frank Herbert ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: GNOME 2.26 Showstopper Review
Le mardi 24 février 2009 à 23:10 +0100, Vincent Untz a écrit : > Which is why putting this in gnome-python-extras is a good solution: > this will still be available if it's needed, but it won't be part of > GNOME (since nothing in GNOME depends on it anymore). From the downstream POV, this only looks like more complication. How about shipping them in gnome-python, but not building them unless --with-gnomeprint is passed ? This way we will be able to build them for non-GNOME applications that still use the bindings, probably split in a separate package. Cheers, -- .''`. Debian 5.0 "Lenny" has been released! : :' : `. `' Last night, Darth Vader came down from planet Vulcan and told `-me that if you don't install Lenny, he'd melt your brain. signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: GNOME 2.26 Showstopper Review
On Mon, 2009-02-23 at 20:43 +0100, Andre Klapper wrote: > (Better late than never.) > > Take a look, test & help out, comment if there's important bugs that are > not listed here, make 2.26 rock. > > > > EVOLUTION > > Camel Disk summary meta bug > http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=543389 > Summary says it all. (And I personally hope that Evolution 2.26.0 will > become the stable version that 2.24.0 was supposed to be.) There are multiple bugs under this (~33 bugs), and I wouldn't categorize all of them as blockers. I would be looking to fix some of the top-most-reported ones on this tracker like the folder/expunge failure, count, and crashes. I wouldn't be targeting any missing features in this list. -Srini. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: GNOME 2.26 Showstopper Review
On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 23:12 +0100, Steve Frécinaux wrote: > Alberto Ruiz wrote: > > 2009/2/24 Gian Mario Tagliaretti : > >> On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 8:46 PM, Vincent Untz wrote: > >> > Tomboy was "using" GnomePrint, the bindings provide the library, so > unless GnomePrint is not going to be shipped anymore there is no point > in talking about "porting". > >>> That's the whole point: we don't want to ship libgnomeprint* anymore :-) > >> Sure, is GnomePrint going to be shipped in 2.26? If the answer is "yes > >> we do" there is no point in discussing it :) > >> (and put it as a showstopper) > > > > Yes there is, if you include them, people with a 2.26 environment may > > end up writing new applications that use them too. > > Can't you just raise a warning when importing one of the deprecated > modules, so it still works for older applications but warn authors that > it is obsolete? Yes, we can do that. Although there is always the risk that deprecating GnomeVFS will make some users furious if there is no viable alternative to do the same thing with GIO [1]. And I mean GIO + GIO Python bindings. It could happen that an application is using a GnomeVFS API for something that GIO does not provide or for which there are no Python bindings, since coverage is probably not 100%. Maybe it's too soon to deprecate GnomeVFS? I agree GnomePrint has been replaced a long time ago, but GIO is too new IMHO. [1] See bug #434023 for an example. -- Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro "The universe is always one step beyond logic" -- Frank Herbert ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: GNOME 2.26 Showstopper Review
Alberto Ruiz wrote: 2009/2/24 Gian Mario Tagliaretti : On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 8:46 PM, Vincent Untz wrote: Tomboy was "using" GnomePrint, the bindings provide the library, so unless GnomePrint is not going to be shipped anymore there is no point in talking about "porting". That's the whole point: we don't want to ship libgnomeprint* anymore :-) Sure, is GnomePrint going to be shipped in 2.26? If the answer is "yes we do" there is no point in discussing it :) (and put it as a showstopper) Yes there is, if you include them, people with a 2.26 environment may end up writing new applications that use them too. Can't you just raise a warning when importing one of the deprecated modules, so it still works for older applications but warn authors that it is obsolete? ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: GNOME 2.26 Showstopper Review
On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 23:03 +0100, Wouter Bolsterlee wrote: > There is no way to find out who is actually using the Python (or whatever > language) bindings for a given library. Some may have custom applications > around, and just dropping support while the underlying library is not > officially dropped sends out the wrong signal I think: at the very least it > is unfriendly, if not plain unacceptable. Well, we're talking only about those applications in the GNOME modulesets, aren't we? For those applications, there's a way to find out who is using what, and that's the information we should use to decide whether deprecate or not a support for a library from an upstream point of view, IMHO. Custom app writers and distributions are obviously free to ship and use whatever they want for their modules outside of the official GNOME sets. Cheers, Cosimo ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: GNOME 2.26 Showstopper Review
Le mardi 24 février 2009, à 23:03 +0100, Wouter Bolsterlee a écrit : > There is no way to find out who is actually using the Python (or whatever > language) bindings for a given library. Some may have custom applications > around, and just dropping support while the underlying library is not > officially dropped sends out the wrong signal I think: at the very least it > is unfriendly, if not plain unacceptable. Which is why putting this in gnome-python-extras is a good solution: this will still be available if it's needed, but it won't be part of GNOME (since nothing in GNOME depends on it anymore). Vincent -- Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: GNOME 2.26 Showstopper Review
[Note: cutting down To/Cc, I only left lists/teams) 2009-02-24 klockan 22:47 skrev Cosimo Cecchi: > On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 22:27 +0100, Wouter Bolsterlee wrote: > > - If a deprecated library is still shipped > > - then the language bindings for that deprecated library should also be > > shipped. > > - Else, if the deprecated library will not be shipped > > - then the language bindings should not be shipped either. > > Or am I missing something? > Yeah, though I'd say, if no clients of the binding among the GNOME > package use the binding anymore (for instance, if no app uses the python > GnomePrint binding because all the remaining clients use the C API), > remove the support for the library from the binding as early as possible > to avoid blocking on bindings later. > Is this too unfair? There is no way to find out who is actually using the Python (or whatever language) bindings for a given library. Some may have custom applications around, and just dropping support while the underlying library is not officially dropped sends out the wrong signal I think: at the very least it is unfriendly, if not plain unacceptable. — Wouter signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: GNOME 2.26 Showstopper Review
[re-sending to list, this time from the right email address] On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 22:27 +0100, Wouter Bolsterlee wrote: > - If a deprecated library is still shipped > - then the language bindings for that deprecated library should also be > shipped. > - Else, if the deprecated library will not be shipped > - then the language bindings should not be shipped either. > > Or am I missing something? Yeah, though I'd say, if no clients of the binding among the GNOME package use the binding anymore (for instance, if no app uses the python GnomePrint binding because all the remaining clients use the C API), remove the support for the library from the binding as early as possible to avoid blocking on bindings later. Is this too unfair? Ciao, Cosimo ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: GNOME 2.26 Showstopper Review
2009-02-24 klockan 21:37 skrev Alberto Ruiz: > 2009/2/24 Gian Mario Tagliaretti : > > On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 8:46 PM, Vincent Untz wrote: > >>> Tomboy was "using" GnomePrint, the bindings provide the library, so > >>> unless GnomePrint is not going to be shipped anymore there is no point > >>> in talking about "porting". > >> That's the whole point: we don't want to ship libgnomeprint* anymore :-) > > Sure, is GnomePrint going to be shipped in 2.26? If the answer is "yes > > we do" there is no point in discussing it :) > > (and put it as a showstopper) > Yes there is, if you include them, people with a 2.26 environment may > end up writing new applications that use them too. Hey all, this isn't that hard to get right, is it? Both the library and its bindings are in, or both are out. In other words: - If a deprecated library is still shipped - then the language bindings for that deprecated library should also be shipped. - Else, if the deprecated library will not be shipped - then the language bindings should not be shipped either. Or am I missing something? — Wouter signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: GNOME 2.26 Showstopper Review
2009/2/24 Gian Mario Tagliaretti : > On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 8:46 PM, Vincent Untz wrote: > >>> Tomboy was "using" GnomePrint, the bindings provide the library, so >>> unless GnomePrint is not going to be shipped anymore there is no point >>> in talking about "porting". > >> That's the whole point: we don't want to ship libgnomeprint* anymore :-) > > Sure, is GnomePrint going to be shipped in 2.26? If the answer is "yes > we do" there is no point in discussing it :) > (and put it as a showstopper) Yes there is, if you include them, people with a 2.26 environment may end up writing new applications that use them too. > just my two cent > > cheers > -- > Gian Mario Tagliaretti > GNOME Foundation member > gia...@gnome.org > ___ > desktop-devel-list mailing list > desktop-devel-list@gnome.org > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list > -- Un saludo, Alberto Ruiz ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: GNOME 2.26 Showstopper Review
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 8:46 PM, Vincent Untz wrote: >> Tomboy was "using" GnomePrint, the bindings provide the library, so >> unless GnomePrint is not going to be shipped anymore there is no point >> in talking about "porting". > That's the whole point: we don't want to ship libgnomeprint* anymore :-) Sure, is GnomePrint going to be shipped in 2.26? If the answer is "yes we do" there is no point in discussing it :) (and put it as a showstopper) just my two cent cheers -- Gian Mario Tagliaretti GNOME Foundation member gia...@gnome.org ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: GNOME 2.26 Showstopper Review
Le mardi 24 février 2009, à 20:31 +0100, Gian Mario Tagliaretti a écrit : > On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 4:29 PM, Andre Klapper wrote: > >> We've been trying to remove libgnomeprint* for quite some time now. > >> Tomboy has been ported this cycle, so the bindings are the last steps, I > >> believe. > > Tomboy was "using" GnomePrint, the bindings provide the library, so > unless GnomePrint is not going to be shipped anymore there is no point > in talking about "porting". That's the whole point: we don't want to ship libgnomeprint* anymore :-) Vincent -- Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: GNOME 2.26 Showstopper Review
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 4:29 PM, Andre Klapper wrote: Andre I think there are some misunderstanding, or if not, I'm the one misunderstanding :) >> > Does GnomePrint no longer belong in the GNOME Desktop platform? > > http://live.gnome.org/TwoPointTwentyfive/Desktop#upcoming_deprecations gnome-python-desktop "contains" the GnomePrint bindings, is not "using" them, so I think it's not even worth discussing to remove them from there, it's different than modules to be ported to GtkPrint, there is nothing to port. >> We've been trying to remove libgnomeprint* for quite some time now. >> Tomboy has been ported this cycle, so the bindings are the last steps, I >> believe. Tomboy was "using" GnomePrint, the bindings provide the library, so unless GnomePrint is not going to be shipped anymore there is no point in talking about "porting". >> > Does GnomeVFS no longer belong in the GNOME Developer platform? > > http://live.gnome.org/TwoPointTwentyfive/Platform#upcoming_deprecations The same apply here, python bindings for gnomeVFS are included in gnome-python so unless Gnome is not shipping it anymore as part of the platform, both gnome-python and gnome-python-desktop are not "using" GnomeVFS so there is really nothing to be done there. cheers -- Gian Mario Tagliaretti GNOME Foundation member gia...@gnome.org ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: GNOME 2.26 Showstopper Review
Am Dienstag, den 24.02.2009, 15:47 +0100 schrieb Vincent Untz: > Le mardi 24 février 2009, à 14:35 +, Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro a écrit : > > Does GnomePrint no longer belong in the GNOME Desktop platform? http://live.gnome.org/TwoPointTwentyfive/Desktop#upcoming_deprecations > We've been trying to remove libgnomeprint* for quite some time now. > Tomboy has been ported this cycle, so the bindings are the last steps, I > believe. To be exact: gnome-python-desktop and gnome-games (the latter to be ported for 2.27.1, see http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=564655 ). > > Does GnomeVFS no longer belong in the GNOME Developer platform? http://live.gnome.org/TwoPointTwentyfive/Platform#upcoming_deprecations > > In case of Yes, would it be OK to keep the Python bindings where they > > are and just mark them as deprecated? Else they'd have to move into > > gnome-python-extras, I guess... > > For gnome-vfs, marking the bindings as deprecated makes sense, since > gnome-vfs is still part of the platform at the moment. The only modules still requiring gnome-vfs are: * dasher: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=572134 * gnome-mag through its libcolorblind dependency * gnome-python * gnome-utils: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=543713 * probably some other deprecated modules like libgnome/ui That's all, and I hope gnome-vfs will die for 2.27.1, too. andre -- mailto:ak...@gmx.net | failed http://www.iomc.de/ | http://blogs.gnome.org/aklapper ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: GNOME 2.26 Showstopper Review
Le mardi 24 février 2009, à 14:35 +, Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro a écrit : > Does GnomePrint no longer belong in the GNOME Desktop platform? We've been trying to remove libgnomeprint* for quite some time now. Tomboy has been ported this cycle, so the bindings are the last steps, I believe. > Does GnomeVFS no longer belong in the GNOME Developer platform? > > In case of Yes, would it be OK to keep the Python bindings where they > are and just mark them as deprecated? Else they'd have to move into > gnome-python-extras, I guess... For gnome-vfs, marking the bindings as deprecated makes sense, since gnome-vfs is still part of the platform at the moment. Vincent -- Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: GNOME 2.26 Showstopper Review
On Mon, 2009-02-23 at 21:41 +0100, Gian Mario Tagliaretti wrote: > On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 8:43 PM, Andre Klapper wrote: > > Andre, > > > * http://live.gnome.org/GtkPrintPort : > > gnome-games, gnome-python-desktop, gnome-devel-docs (update) > > > > * http://live.gnome.org/GioPort : > > PATCHES: dasher > > TODO: gnome-python-desktop, gnome-utils/gsearchtool Correction: GnomeVFS bindings are in gnome-python, not gnome-python-desktop. > > I don't think that gnome-python-desktop would need removing GtkPrint > and gnomeVFS, it contains GnomePrint python bindings which cannot be > removed and I cannot find any reference to GnomeVFS that needs to be > removed. > > If I'm mistaking please correct me, cc'ing Gustavo for a better opinion. I really don't know. Does GnomePrint no longer belong in the GNOME Desktop platform? Does GnomeVFS no longer belong in the GNOME Developer platform? In case of Yes, would it be OK to keep the Python bindings where they are and just mark them as deprecated? Else they'd have to move into gnome-python-extras, I guess... -- Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro "The universe is always one step beyond logic" -- Frank Herbert ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: GNOME 2.26 Showstopper Review
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 8:43 PM, Andre Klapper wrote: Andre, > * http://live.gnome.org/GtkPrintPort : > gnome-games, gnome-python-desktop, gnome-devel-docs (update) > > * http://live.gnome.org/GioPort : > PATCHES: dasher > TODO: gnome-python-desktop, gnome-utils/gsearchtool I don't think that gnome-python-desktop would need removing GtkPrint and gnomeVFS, it contains GnomePrint python bindings which cannot be removed and I cannot find any reference to GnomeVFS that needs to be removed. If I'm mistaking please correct me, cc'ing Gustavo for a better opinion. cheers -- Gian Mario Tagliaretti GNOME Foundation member gia...@gnome.org ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
GNOME 2.26 Showstopper Review
(Better late than never.) Take a look, test & help out, comment if there's important bugs that are not listed here, make 2.26 rock. EVOLUTION Camel Disk summary meta bug http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=543389 Summary says it all. (And I personally hope that Evolution 2.26.0 will become the stable version that 2.24.0 was supposed to be.) GNOME-DOC-UTILS Bidirational problems in xsl http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=563559 Should be fixed as per comment 15, but testing would be very welcome! GNOME-PYTHON Convert from popt to GOption http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=507174 Still the very last module to get rid of popt. Patch available, but needs more work. GNOME-SESSION gnome-session doesn't save session anymore http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=552387 A famous bug, but my secret webcam shows that Lucas is working on this. GNOME-SYSTEM-TOOLS no i18n of .policy files http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=528015 Big i18n issue, and patch available awaiting review. GTK+ gtk-builder-convert creates untranslated combobox models http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=553385 Patch needs rework. Volunteers highly welcome. NAUTILUS untranslatable ordinal numbers in nautilus-file-operations.c http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=325284 Should be easy to fix after the latest discussion in the report. POLICYKIT-GNOME Some strings doesn't work properly with translations http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=549411 Trivial patch still awaiting review from the maintainers. GNOME GOALS not yet completed: * http://live.gnome.org/GnomeGoals/PoptGOption : Gnome-Python (as mentioned above) * http://live.gnome.org/GtkPrintPort : gnome-games, gnome-python-desktop, gnome-devel-docs (update) * http://live.gnome.org/GioPort : PATCHES: dasher TODO: gnome-python-desktop, gnome-utils/gsearchtool More Goals available: * http://live.gnome.org/GnomeGoals/CleanupGTKIncludes * http://live.gnome.org/GnomeGoals/RemoveDeprecatedSymbols/Glib * http://live.gnome.org/GnomeGoals/RemoveDeprecatedSymbols/GTK%2B * http://live.gnome.org/GnomeGoals/RemoveLibGladeUseGtkBuilder ...plus of course getting rid of deprecated modules (especially libgnome, libgnomeui and bonobo) for GNOME 3. A fine selection of 2.28 blockers is available at http://bugzilla.gnome.org/buglist.cgi?query=meta-status:open,needinfo+gnome-target=2.28.x . More info about the showstopper reviews at http://live.gnome.org/Bugsquad/ShowstopperReviews -andre ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
