| 1 |
On Tuesday 22 of June 2010 19:14:38 Arun Raghavan wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 20 June 2010 20:12, Arun Raghavan <ford_prefect@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> [...] |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> > Any objections? I'll wait till Wed (June 23rd) before adding this if |
| 6 |
> > there aren't any. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Is anyone here vehemently against "introspection". |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Not vehemently, but how would you differentiate between gobject introspection |
| 11 |
or (let's say) DBus introspection or Kross (if anyone writes one). |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
'introspection' global USE flag simply cannot be described as: |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
"Use <pkg>dev-libs/gobject-introspection</pkg> for introspection</flag>" |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
because the term introspection is not specific to GObject. Period. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Now, I don't want to sound harsh, but I understand in Gnome camp (upstream) |
| 20 |
there's a tendency to use commonly used names for Gnome specific |
| 21 |
"technologies". For instance - there's WebKitGtk but tarballs is called (yes, |
| 22 |
you guessed it) - webkit-${PV}.tar.gz. It's like for many Desktop Environment |
| 23 |
means Gnome, Linux means Ubuntu and such. |
| 24 |
The same applies to GObject introspection - in autotools there's --enable- |
| 25 |
introspection switch for it like the term introspection was exclusive for |
| 26 |
GObject. Also many upstream developers working with Gnome/Gtk/Glib libs and |
| 27 |
using said GObject introspection will defend their right to hijack this term |
| 28 |
(like certain developer of a library I maintain in Gentoo). |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
I'd prefer not to see such practice here. |
| 31 |
I'd suggest gobject-introspection USE flag instead - it's self describing. |
| 32 |
If 'introspection' USE flag is to be used globally, it needs to have |
| 33 |
description implementation-agnostic, let's say: |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
"Enable runtime API introspection" |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
or something like this. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
-- |
| 40 |
regards |
| 41 |
MM |
Archives