Firstly, sincere congratulations on making the 2.0.0 releases. It isThanks!
wonderful to see all your hard work over the years pay off so far. :)
[stuff about pygtk future]
Agreed.
[stuff about pyorbit]
Yes and yes.This is an interesting question. I really don't want to stick bindings for too many libraries into the pygtk tarball. I think it is a good thing that it is fairly low in the dependency stack, since it makes it easier for other packages to depend on pygtk for their builds.
What do you think about moving the gtksourceview bindings into the main module (I'm not sure where exactly in the directory tree)? This is all said without having talked to the maintainer about his plans, but I like the idea of having a single-source download for this kind of stuff. Things like vte are different, since it includes the Python bindings in the main module.
Making these sort of things optional dependencies is really a copout though. For people building packages (ie. Linux distros, etc), the optional dependencies are essentially hard dependencies if they want all features of the package to be built (even if they then split things up into multiple binary packages). If pygtk has an optional dependency on libfoo, then other packages that depend on pygtk (optional or not) will also depend on libfoo. If these dependencies get too complex, they are likely to either (a) not build pygtk's libfoo binding, or parts of other packages that depend on pygtk.
Now it might make sense to distribute the GtkSourceView binding with gnome-python. Alternatively, it might make sense to package them with GtkSourceView itself (like with VTE). I don't know.
There is one big improvement in Python 2.3 that would be worth making use of: the new PyGILState APIs, which could significantly reduce the complexity of PyGTK's thread support (and get it to play nicer with other threading aware Python extensions):Any comments?
My only real request is to continue supporting Python 2.2. I was one of the people in favour of requiring 2.2 early on, so this risks sounding hypocritical, but the changes between 2.2 and 2.3 are not as large as from 2.1 to 2.2 and there will be a lot of installations with no plans to upgrade for some time. (OK, this is partly selfish: I've just got people at work beginning to use some apps in PyGTK and we have no upgrade plans in the near future for a large number of pragmatic reasons.)
(In case that sounds wrong in email, I am not sure what your plans are -- this is just a pre-emptive $0.02 strike. :-) )
http://www.python.org/peps/pep-0311.html
It is definitely worth experimenting here. Whether we go for conditional compilation, or disabling threading for Python 2.2, or not make use of it at all is not clear.
For a non-threaded build, I see no reason to require 2.3 though.
James.
-- Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWW: http://www.daa.com.au/~james/
_______________________________________________ pygtk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.daa.com.au/mailman/listinfo/pygtk Read the PyGTK FAQ: http://www.async.com.br/faq/pygtk/
