Re: [pygtk] PyGObject directory issue again, taking a stand

[John Palmieri <johnp redhat com>]

Ok, I took the plunge.  I still have not moved the header files since they are mostly used by static bindings and I have not removed the pygtk.pth file.  Please make sure to clean out your install and build roots and test against PyGtk and other static bindings to make sure I didn't just break the world.

----- "John Palmieri" <johnp redhat com> wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> I'm taking a stand on the issue of PyGObject modules being placed in
> the gtk-2.0 directory.  This causes path issues when built in a
> buildroot and causes confusion issues when developers aren't sure if
> they should import pygtk and call pygtk.require('2.0').  Not to
> mention that PyGObject Introspection targets Gtk-3.0.
> 
> My proposal, which I am going through with if there is no serious
> objections, is this - move the gi, gobject and glib modules outside of
> the gtk-2.0 module into the site-packages top level module directory
> in the next unstable release.  If it breaks the world we can move back
> before distros ship with it.  All static generated bindings will keep
> on keeping on inside the gtk-2.0 directory.  Because of how search
> paths were setup this should really not produce any visible changes in
> apps but will allow us to drop the requirement to import pygtk for
> next generation apps.  The only issue I can forsee is if static
> generated bindings were using relative imports.
> 
> Should we need to have a parallel installable glib/gobject 3, we can
> simply namespace them as glib3 and gobject3 when the time comes.
> 
> If you feel this is a really bad idea, speak now.   
>  
> --
> John (J5) Palmieri
> Software Engineer
> Red Hat, Inc.
> _______________________________________________
> pygtk mailing list   pygtk daa com au
> http://www.daa.com.au/mailman/listinfo/pygtk
> Read the PyGTK FAQ: http://faq.pygtk.org/

-- 
--
John (J5) Palmieri
Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc.