Re: merging PyGI into PyGObject

On Jun 14, 2010, at 06:41 PM, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:

>Johan has suggested merging PyGI back into PyGObject because:
>- PyGI has reached "useful" status, applications that make use of it are 
>packaged and used in distros and we are close enough to being 
>- PyGI is more mature now: is regularly maintained, uses the GNOME 
>infrastructure, is packageable, code contributions are reviewed, has 
>consistent code guidelines, etc.
>- some of the biggest features missing in PyGI overlap with 
>functionality already in PyGObject, namely properties and signals. If we 
>want to be able to support properties that return collections and do so 
>with proper memory management, we need to be able to use the information 
>available through introspection. If we tried to implement this in PyGI, 
>we would be duplicating lots of work currently in PyGObject.
>- some changes are needed in the GType system for supporting 
>fundamentals and foreign structs coming from g-i.
>It has been proposed as well making the --enable-pygi switch the default.

Will this affect Python 3 support, or can we still eventually get there with a
combined package?


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

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