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 >feature-complete. > >- 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. > >Opinions? Will this affect Python 3 support, or can we still eventually get there with a combined package? -Barry
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature