Re: Problem with GI and pygtk

[Martin Pitt <martin pitt ubuntu com>]

Simon Feltman [2014-08-13 17:30 -0700]:
> 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.

Agreed. In Debian/Ubuntu the binary package names are now python-gi
and python3-gi, for that reason. So renaming the project/source
would be the last step for making this consistent again, and renaming
source packages/projects is fairly harmless in terms of breaking
existing code/dependencies.

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

Not exactly, but it seems to be a part of the gnome.org realm. At
least it now says that PyGObject is now preferred, but that's not
quite strong enough to convey *how* obsolete and unmaintained it
actually is :/

Martin
-- 
Martin Pitt                        | http://www.piware.de
Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com)  | Debian Developer  (www.debian.org)