Re: Problem with GI and pygtk

[Simon Feltman <s feltman gmail com>]

On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 2:54 PM, Tobias Mueller <muelli cryptobitch de> wrote:
> Hi.
>
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 02:08:11PM -0700, Simon Feltman wrote:
> > PyGTK is based on PyGObject 2. Introspection (gir bindings) requires
> > PyGObject 3 (or PyGI) which provides the "gi" Python package.
> FWIW: I find that naming scheme *very* confusing.
> It probably makes a lot of sense, but it's not very obvious to me
> why "PyGObject" should be more modern than "PyGTK"; even worse:
> they are incompatible which I wouldn't be able to tell by looking
> at their names.

I agree it is confusing, does adding the version suffix to PyGObject help any?

I would honestly wouldn't mind if we renamed the project to PyGI. I
don't know if it helps in terms of being less confusing for people
trying to figure this stuff out, but I think it is a nicer looking
name without the baggage. Furthermore, it matches the functionality
and Python package name being provided.

> I don't have a very useful suggestion, but to elaborate on the relationship
> on both websites.

That's probably a good start.

Does anyone know who owns pygtk.org and how we can edit it?

-Simon