On 08/25/2010 01:22 PM, John Stowers wrote:
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 9:08 PM, Tomeu Vizoso
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 22:37, John Palmieri<[email protected]> wrote:
Hmm, seems my original e-mail never made it to the list. Thanks for posting
this Tomeu.
----- "John Stowers"<[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 2010-08-20 at 17:54 +0200, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
Hi all,
as you may know J5 is working on the Python3 port of PyGObject and
he
has found that porting the gio static bindings is a lot of work and
somewhat useless as the rest of the static bindings aren't likely
to
be ported to Python 3 at all.
I would like to put for consideration the idea of moving gio from
pygobject to pygtk, so it is not destabilized by pygobject's port
to
Python 3. The code generator is in the same situation, so it could
also be moved to pygtk.
Would it be easier to put the static gio bindings in their own
repository/package?
Easier isn't the word but a one time pain of setting up a new project and
creating a new autotools build shouldn't be too bad.
Ok, we need now a volunteer :)
If this is the consensus then I could do it.
However, any idea who I would have to poke to create a new repository
that also preserves the gio git history?
I think you just create a new repo following
http://live.gnome.org/Git/NewRepository and then merge pygobject/master
into there by using git filter-branch.
I believe we can keep using the same bugzilla product/component.
Thanks a lot for taking this task,
Tomeu
_______________________________________________
pygtk mailing list [email protected]
http://www.daa.com.au/mailman/listinfo/pygtk
Read the PyGTK FAQ: http://faq.pygtk.org/
