Re: moving some stuff from pygobject to pygtk

On Fri, 2010-08-20 at 17:54 +0200, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
> Hi all,
> as you may know J5 is working on the Python3 port of PyGObject and he
> has found that porting the gio static bindings is a lot of work and
> somewhat useless as the rest of the static bindings aren't likely to
> be ported to Python 3 at all.
> I would like to put for consideration the idea of moving gio from
> pygobject to pygtk, so it is not destabilized by pygobject's port to
> Python 3. The code generator is in the same situation, so it could
> also be moved to pygtk.

Would it be easier to put the static gio bindings in their own
repository/package? How do we imagine this playing out with
dependencies? Does the distributor build two binary packages from the
PyGObject sources (one against Python-2, one against Python-3)?

PyGtk -deps-> PyGIO + PyGObject(2) -> Python-2
gir-packages -> PyGObject(3) -> Python-3

I don't think they belong in pygtk.

As for the code generator, it was quite a pain when it moved from pygtk
to pygobject wrt. build setups. What is the problem with it staying in
PyGObject if the GIO stuff moves out?

> I know that pygtk doesn't have an excess of maintainers right now, but
> these modules should be relatively mature already.

Agree. I was one of the first large-scale users of the GIO bindings, and
they took at least 2 cycles to get to a stable state.

Finally, I would be saddened if the port to Python3 destabilised
PyGObject very much. PyGObject is stable software, and backward
compatibility breakages should be unacceptable (but deprecations

> There's also the question of what to do with the Gtk and Gdk overrides
> in and their
> tests, which don't really belong to pygobject.

I can't comment on this one sorry.



> Any ideas?
> Thanks,
> Tomeu
> _______________________________________________
> python-hackers-list mailing list
> python-hackers-list gnome org

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]