Re: merging PyGI into PyGObject

[Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu vizoso collabora co uk>]

On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 19:11, Barry Warsaw <barry python org> wrote:
> 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?

We have bitrotten packages for both PyGI and PyGObject, they used to
pass the tests.

If we don't merge the patches before the module merge, then we'll need
to rub them a bit more when applying.

This makes me think: what should be done before we can merge the
Python 3.x patches?

Regards,

Tomeu

> -Barry
>
> _______________________________________________
> python-hackers-list mailing list
> python-hackers-list gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/python-hackers-list
>
>