Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Andreas Rottmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> To clarify the situation: I've included mininimal wrappers for GLib >> that work with both GLib 1.x and GLib 2.x in G-Wrap, mainly to support >> GnuCash. These wrappers are built against GLib 1.x, since currently >> GnuCash/GNOME2 is not ready for prime-time, and GNOME2 programs >> written in Guile should use the bindings of GLib in guile-gnome >> anyway, since these are much more complete. When GnuCash/GNOME2 >> finally arrives, either G-Wrap has to build the GLib bindings against >> GLib 2.x, or GnuCash has to switch to use guile-gnome. > > It is simply not important to me to "get rid of things" for its own > sake. > Well, G-Wrap 1.3 has no upstream anymore, and its functionality is replicated in G-Wrap 1.9 - you know, I didn't add the compatibility layer for the fun of it.
> I don't want to make potentionally destabilizing changes, and I > *especially* don't want to make changes like this which result in > upstream saying "you're totally on your own now." > Does upstream actually say that? I've been talking with Derek Atkins (warlord) on IRC, and from what I gathered, they are trying to use G-Wrap 1.9, and mostly suceeding modulo a few buglets, all of which should be fixed in the Debian packaging. > I'm happy maintaining gwrapguile right now. It's extremely stable and > isn't causing any problems that I know of. > Of course GnuCash is your package, and you are free to maintain it as you like; I was merely suggesting that switching to G-Wrap 1.9 should be a viable option. Regards, Rotty -- Andreas Rottmann | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://yi.org/rotty | GnuPG Key: http://yi.org/rotty/gpg.asc Fingerprint | DFB4 4EB4 78A4 5EEE 6219 F228 F92F CFC5 01FD 5B62 v2sw7MYChw5pr5OFma7u7Lw2m5g/l7Di6e6t5BSb7en6g3/5HZa2Xs6MSr1/2p7 hackerkey.com It's *GNU*/Linux dammit! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
