From: Duncan C. <dun...@wo...> - 2004-12-04 14:45:48
|
On Fri, 2004-12-03 at 23:25 +0900, Jens Petersen wrote: > Axel Simon wrote: > > On Thu, 2004-12-02 at 10:56, Jens Petersen wrote: > > > >>>I discusses with > >>>Duncan that we should probably split the whole thing into base2hs which > >>>contains non-GUI related stuff and then gtk2hs, gconf2hs, sourceview2hs, > >>>etc, so we can e.g. install only base2hs and gconf2hs without the GUI > >>>stuff. > > I'm not really sure about the naming convention though: originally > I thought gtk2hs was as in "gtk2 for Haskell" (as opposed to gtk+hs), > but now you seem to be using 2 == "to": is that the intention? > Well I guess it is ok. :) Just to weigh in on the naming convention discussion... :-) I reckon the packages should just be called the same as the C packages (ie without the 2hs suffix), though of course the overall thing is called gtk2hs. So I'd say: gtk, gconf, sourceview, glade. For the base package, I'd be inclined to call it 'glib' as it'll contain just the glib marshaling code and GObject. Sorry I've not been very active the past two weeks. I've been very busy with teaching and project work (getting viva'ed). I made some changes to the Makefile.am for the other packages (glade, mogul, etc). That was about a week ago, so I'll need to resync it first (unless you've already got the other packages working and I didn't notice the cvs commit). Duncan |