Albert Astals Cid wrote: > El divendres, 8 d’abril de 2016, a les 0:29:57 CEST, Stephen Kelly va > escriure: >> Albert Astals Cid wrote: >> > So my suggestion would be renaming pykde5.git to pykf5.git, and that >> > means *only* KDE Frameworks 5 bindings would go in there, any other >> > repo that wants to provide python bindings (say okular, marble or >> > krita) should do somewhere else, ideally their own repo so the binding >> > and the original code are close together and it's easier to keep in >> > sync when api changes. >> >> FYI, this issue came up recently in the context of bindings to another >> language (QML): >> >> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.kde.devel.frameworks/30734/focus=30770 >> >> I'm not very familiar with python bindings generally. Would it be >> practical to put the bindings in the same repo as the library they relate >> to? > > See the answer he made to one of my previous emails, in short no.
Ah, yes. I see that this exact issue was discussed already. I wasn't reading closely enough when catching up on this thread, so sorry for that. However, the answer doesn't seem to shorten to 'no' to me. A CMake macro can be put in extra-cmake-modules, and the tools for binding generation can be put 'somewhere' which doesn't constitute a 'part of the tiers' in the same way that ECM is not 'part of the tiers' for the purpose of deciding 'what is tier 1'. If there's no packaging-related reason to avoid that approach, I wonder if we can discuss it. Thanks, Steve.
