On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 11:14 AM, Tomeu Vizoso <to...@sugarlabs.org> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 09:22, Rafael Villar Burke (Pachi) > <pa...@rvburke.com> wrote: >> Alex Dedul wrote: >>> Hi! >>> >>> Any news on porting pygtk to python 3 ? I would be glad to help maybe >>> almost full-time on this. Just would be good to know current status on >>> this matters first.. And if none projects or initiatives were already >>> started on this - is to okay then to just clone git repo and start >>> hacking ? Any things i better do before that like to notify some >>> people about this or the like ? >>> >> AFAIK, the expected way to support python 3.x is through >> gobject-introspection generated bindings. >> >> If you want to help pushing forward python 3 support then, IMHO, it >> would be a good idea to help with the pybank and pygobject introspection >> work. This last project was mentioned on the mailing list some days ago. >> You should read the "[pygtk] introspection pygobject branch" thread >> starting on the 13rd of october this year for more information and >> pending tasks and try to contact the people working on it. >> >> Regards, and thanks for helping, > > Yes, having introspection support means we don't have to port the > existing static bindings, making the move to 3.0 (and maybe pypy?) > more doable. > > Some info: > > http://live.gnome.org/PyGObject > http://live.gnome.org/PyGI > > All help is welcome. > > Regards, > > Tomeu
Thanks guys! I'll do some research on those matters and we'll see what do we have and what to do with all of that. With best regards from the Soul, Alex. _______________________________________________ pygtk mailing list pygtk@daa.com.au http://www.daa.com.au/mailman/listinfo/pygtk Read the PyGTK FAQ: http://faq.pygtk.org/
