From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11716 invoked by alias); 2 Jun 2003 06:51:27 -0000 Mailing-List: contact guile-gtk-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: guile-gtk-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 11709 invoked from network); 2 Jun 2003 06:51:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imf47bis.bellsouth.net) (205.152.58.151) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 2 Jun 2003 06:51:27 -0000 Received: from fridge ([68.154.193.135]) by imf47bis.bellsouth.net (InterMail vM.5.01.04.25 201-253-122-122-125-20020815) with ESMTP id <20030602065341.NQHU2907.imf47bis.bellsouth.net@fridge> for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2003 02:53:41 -0400 Received: from lark (mantis.schoolnet.na [::ffff:196.44.140.238]) (AUTH: LOGIN wingo) by fridge with esmtp; Mon, 02 Jun 2003 02:51:18 -0400 Received: from wingo by lark with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 19KLok-0003n7-00 for ; Mon, 26 May 2003 18:31:26 +0100 Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2003 06:51:00 -0000 From: Andy Wingo To: guile-gtk@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: The GTK2 line of development Message-ID: <20030526173126.GB6014@lark> Mail-Followup-To: guile-gtk@sources.redhat.com References: <20030524114111.GC24132@lark> <8765nymwnm.fsf@zip.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <8765nymwnm.fsf@zip.com.au> X-Operating-System: Linux lark 2.4.20 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i X-SW-Source: 2003-q2/txt/msg00126.txt.bz2 On Mon, 26 May 2003, Kevin Ryde wrote: > But gtk 1.2 is a bit of a dead end unfortunately. I'd like to see the > main guile-gtk support basically whatever is the current gtk. Perhaps > with some conditionals to support a few past versions, if that's of > interest and if it's not too hard. Unfortunately the codebases are, as you know, completely separate. The underlying type systems are also different enough to prevent easy adaptation of either codebase to the other version. It's not worth it. > > So we have (gnome gobject), > > That's the glib gobject I take it. Perhaps glib should have an > independent existance (glib glib), (glib gobject), etc. I was wondering myself about that. The thing that binds the projects together are the binding generation code (defs-support, gw-utils, etc) and that they are all based on the GObject type system, with the exception of GLib. Gnome is the overarching project under which all are being developed though, and if I had to choose a name that would be it. Of course, glib doesn't depend at all on gnome, the current module name notwithstanding. > (But within one project. I think all in one would be easiest for > development, mainly since I think each higher interface is going to > need to know a good deal about how the lower ones are implemented, and > there's probably a good amount of common stuff anyway.) Yeah. I think, though, since it is all one project, why not have it under one namespace? regards, wingo.