If it is semantically sensible to use g-wrap without having glib
(e.g., to wrap another library), then g-wrap should not depend on
glib or anything gnomeish. IMHO this is more important than keeping
the number of dependencies down - I find many dependencies with no
issues easier than dependencies
Hi Rob,
Good to hear from you ...
On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 12:31:15PM -0500, Rob Browning was heard to remark:
>
... good answer ...
> In any case, until/unless the above happens, the easiest thing to do
> is to just include the version number in the library name,
works for me. That's a goo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Linas Vepstas) writes:
> On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 05:58:43PM +0200, Andreas Rottmann was heard to remark:
>> I'm willing to change this.
>
> Thanks, that would be really great!
Yes. Things should get a lot better on that front now (many thanks to
Andreas).
> Again, this is t
On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 05:58:43PM +0200, Andreas Rottmann was heard to remark:
> I'm willing to change this.
Thanks, that would be really great! My aplogies, I think its
better you hear the complaints before you start, not after.
> libgwrapguile-dev - Development package for libgwrapguile1
> li
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Linas Vepstas) writes:
> On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 04:22:59PM +0200, Andreas Rottmann was heard to remark:
>>
>> [ CC'ing g-wrap-dev, guile-gtk-general. The discussion is about that
>> since G-Wrap now comes without GLib bindings, the GnuCash folks have a
>> dependency more,
On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 04:22:59PM +0200, Andreas Rottmann was heard to remark:
>
> [ CC'ing g-wrap-dev, guile-gtk-general. The discussion is about that
> since G-Wrap now comes without GLib bindings, the GnuCash folks have a
> dependency more, which they seem utterly opposed to ]
No, don't m
Greg Troxel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If it is semantically sensible to use g-wrap without having glib
> (e.g., to wrap another library),
>
It is.
> then g-wrap should not depend on glib or anything gnomeish. IMHO
> this is more important than keeping the number of dependencies down
> - I fi
standard part of guile,
> or swig, or something, and not a stand-alone package.
>
- Ad bundling it with Guile: would mean _way_ too slow releases
- with SWIG: You wouldn't suggest bundling e.g. Python with Perl, would you?
I could vaguely imagine bundling G-Wrap with the core guile-gnome
