python-gnome split

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
4 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

python-gnome split

Josselin Mouette
Hi list,

it was proposed to split out the python-gnome packages in several parts.
I'm not sure that this is appropriate, because it means many new
packages, but it would also save a lot of dependencies for packages
using some of these bindings, as most of them don't use all bindings.

python-gnome2 could be split into:
        python-gconf
        python-gnomevfs
        python-gnomecanvas
        python-bonobo
        python-gnome2
python-gnome2-extras could be split into:
        python-gtkhtml2
        python-gtkmozembed
        python-egg
        python-gksu
        python-gtkspell
        python-gda
        python-gdl

Any thoughts?
--
 .''`.           Josselin Mouette        /\./\
: :' :           [hidden email]
`. `'                        [hidden email]
   `-  Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: python-gnome split

Chipzz
I'm in favor of splitting it up.

kr,

Jan

On Tue, 29 Aug 2006, Josselin Mouette wrote:

> Hi list,
>
> it was proposed to split out the python-gnome packages in several parts.
> I'm not sure that this is appropriate, because it means many new
> packages, but it would also save a lot of dependencies for packages
> using some of these bindings, as most of them don't use all bindings.
>
> python-gnome2 could be split into:
> python-gconf
> python-gnomevfs
> python-gnomecanvas
> python-bonobo
> python-gnome2
> python-gnome2-extras could be split into:
> python-gtkhtml2
> python-gtkmozembed
> python-egg
> python-gksu
> python-gtkspell
> python-gda
> python-gdl
>
> Any thoughts?

Chipzz AKA
Jan Van Buggenhout
--

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  UNIX isn't dead - It just smells funny
                            [hidden email]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Baldric, you wouldn't recognize a subtle plan if it painted itself pur-
  ple and danced naked on a harpsicord singing 'subtle plans are here a-
  gain'."


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: python-gnome split

Loïc Minier
In reply to this post by Josselin Mouette
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> python-gnome2 could be split into:
> [ 5 packages ]
> python-gnome2-extras could be split into:
> [ 7 packages ]

 I don't like that very much, random points:
 1) these transitions are a lot of work
 2) not a gain until the next stable release because of the partial
    upgrade guarantee which forces us to have compatibility deps which
    pull everything
 3) python-gnomish build-deps and deps are hard to get right already
    (just found a new missing dep today on a package which I had
    carefully reviewed for sponsoring multiple times already)
 4) because there's no clean mechanism for upstream to express runtime
    deps, some upstreams use build time checks for runtime dependencies,
    these might break too because of the split; the one to one mapping
    between binary packages and upstream modules is a good thing until
    this problem is addressed
 5) these packages are aimed at machines where GNOME and Python are
    installed, do these need the space saving?

 BTW, there's also python-gnome2-desktop, if you go for a split, you
 might want to split this one as well.

--
Loïc Minier <[hidden email]>


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: python-gnome split

Josselin Mouette
Le mardi 29 août 2006 à 23:03 +0200, Loïc Minier a écrit :
>  I don't like that very much, random points:
>  1) these transitions are a lot of work

I don't think so.

>  2) not a gain until the next stable release because of the partial
>     upgrade guarantee which forces us to have compatibility deps which
>     pull everything

This isn't true either. For example, the python-gnome2 needs to depend
on all other packages anyway. On the other side, some packages may
benefit from the split immediately by reducing their dependencies.

>  3) python-gnomish build-deps and deps are hard to get right already
>     (just found a new missing dep today on a package which I had
>     carefully reviewed for sponsoring multiple times already)
>  4) because there's no clean mechanism for upstream to express runtime
>     deps, some upstreams use build time checks for runtime dependencies,
>     these might break too because of the split; the one to one mapping
>     between binary packages and upstream modules is a good thing until
>     this problem is addressed
>  5) these packages are aimed at machines where GNOME and Python are
>     installed, do these need the space saving?
Well, this was asked, probably because there are popular python-gnome
applications that people want to install without GNOME.

>  BTW, there's also python-gnome2-desktop, if you go for a split, you
>  might want to split this one as well.

Now *this* one looks like a lot of work.

Anyway, it isn't necessarily better to split out everything. The most
problematic one may be gconf, which is used by many others while bonobo
and gnome, for example, are not.
--
 .''`.           Josselin Mouette        /\./\
: :' :           [hidden email]
`. `'                        [hidden email]
  `-  Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom

signature.asc (196 bytes) Download Attachment