sorry for not reacting earlier, which I feel obliged to as the
maintainer of core and perl-bindings.
On Wed, Jul 25, 2007 at 11:59:10AM +0200, Duncan Mac-Vicar Prett wrote:
On Wednesday 25 July 2007 11:41:42 Stefan Hundhammer
> Having separate directories makes building and packaging a lot easier IMHO.
> You also don't need to install all kinds of other language development
> packages if you don't need a certain language. Also, different development
> tools (autotools vs. cmake) make it hard to keep everything in one
> directory, in particular since cmake builds out-of-source-tree and the
> autotools inside the source tree.
Yes, these are the main arguments against grouping:
- different build dependencies
- different build systems 
Yes, but also makes sharing code between the bindings
For example, if you want to generate bindings for the libraries, the swig
stuff will be the same for ruby and python.
First of all, perl-bindings and python-bindings should really be
named perl-bridge and python-bridge. (Hm, maybe I can still have them
renamed before 10.3.)
I understand the term "bindings" as an interface to *concrete*
functions, as seen in yast2-storage for example. That is what SWIG
does and where we could share code. But here we are building
*generic* bridges to any function. From what I have seen, ruby has
had some bindings too and now Duncan built a bridge.
AFAIK, there is no code sharing between the bridges, so that is
another argument for keeping them separate.
: perl-bindings additionally includes an interface between
automake and Perl MakeMaker, but that is not really a complication
Martin Vidner, not a bridge player ♣♦♥♠
Kuracke oddeleni v restauraci je jako fekalni oddeleni v bazenu
To unsubscribe, e-mail: yast-devel+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
For additional commands, e-mail: yast-devel+help(a)opensuse.org