Splitting the GNOME Python bindings for Xfce (Was: stuck)

[Loïc Minier]

        Hi,

On Mon, Sep 18, 2006, Jani Monoses wrote:
>                                                               The 
> problem is that since they are packages maintained by the gnome team we 
> cannot modify them which is ok, but we cannot convince them to apply our 
> patches either which is not :) The reason is according to Seb that we 
> should not diverge from debian. I agree we should not gratuitously 
> diverge from debian. So I talked for over an hour today to two of the 
> debian-gnome packagers about the python bindings split which led to no 
> outcome as they are not interested in splitting the package and instead 
> of a good argument against it they gave several not so good ones IMHO. 

 This is a bit one-sided.  You should at least mention that we suggested
 that we lack either manpower or appropriate technical tools to handle
 Python dependencies in a split scenario.  (For my part, I'm fine to
 publish the unstripped IRC log as documentation of the discussion; if
 you agree and sjoerd does, I suppose it would be nice.)  This was also
 brought up in a thread on debian-gtk-gnome at ldo, which is less complete
 than the discussion we had yesterday.
  <http://lists.debian.org/debian-gtk-gnome/2006/08/threads.html#00040>
 (Please note that in this thread, Josselin was originally in favor of
 such a split, so hope isn't lost. :-)

> And just like Seb sent me to them, they sent me to upstream python-gnome 
> :) So that looks like a dead and especially since they are still getting 
> 2.16 prepared.

 Again, this is slightly inaccurate.  I suggested that half-seriously,
 as one of the possible options to solve your proble: if there's some
 real need for having a split python-gconf, isn't that need existing
 upstream as well?
   Since currently Python application maintainers express dependencies
 on other *sources*, this would help them express dependencies of their
 applications on "python-gconf and only python-gconf", instead of having
 to depend on python-gnome as they currently do.
   Hence, I really think there is some ground to convince upstream to
 split the package exactly like libglade-java is not in libgnome-java.
 I doubt they would like the additional maintenance cost though.

 We certainly did not suggest that bringing it upstream was the *only*
 solution, or to stop the discussion.

> How can this particular issue be solved? Ubuntu has diverged from debian 
> or pioneered stuff when it made sense before. It is just that since 
> gnome maintainers care primarily about gnome it is hard to convince them 
> that this is a case that 'makes sense'.

 It certainly makes sense.  Nobody ever claimed that such a split would
 be useless or wouldn't help or wouldn't make sense.  Most claims were
 on the maintenance burden, lack of tools, etc.

   Bye,

PS: Would be nice if you could put more keywords in the Subject of your
    messages; I skipped the message thinking it was spam or some random
    user complaining he was "stuck".
-- 
Loïc Minier <lool at dooz.org>