Re: Problem with GI and pygtk

[Thomas Martitz <kugel rockbox org>]

Am 14.08.2014 um 07:51 schrieb Martin Pitt:
> 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


Indeed, I was also confused. For me there are now 3 components. And the 
relationship between them is, at best, unclear to me.

pygtk: the original gtk bindings for python2; manually written in the 
beginnings, then based on pygobject
pygobject: ????
pygi: the new automated bindings, for python 2 and 3 (is that correct?)

To me it's clearer what pygi is than what pygobject is, so I think 
renaming would help a bit.

Best regards