On Friday 11 July 2003 6:19 pm, Jonathan Gardner wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Friday 11 July 2003 09:33, Frederick Polgardy Jr wrote: > > Obviously this situation arises, and will continue to arise, every > > iteration of SIP/PyQt development, given that PyKDE is a pretty > > monstrous project, and presumably Jim has a life outside of PyKDE. :) > > The problem is that there is a set of users who want the cutting edge > > SIP/PyQt stuff, and another set (in which I place myself) who want to > > continue to use the complete SIP/PyQt/PyKDE combo until *everything* is > > upgraded. > > > > In the Debian universe, what do you think of the idea of having some > > sort of metapackage for each set (or group of metapkgs, taking python > > versions, etc. into account)? Or is it already too complicated? :) > > I'd guess once the build architecture is fairly well set up, it's not > > too hard to maintain, so I'm happy to help in any way I can. It would > > be worth it to me to not have to deal with the inconsistencies and > > PyKDE "interruption of service" everytime SIP is upgraded. > > > > Any other thoughts on this? I think it's a problem worth solving > > somehow. > > My thought are: > > The problem really is that right now, PyKDE development is having a hard > time keeping up with PyQt/sip development. This is due partly because the > maintainer PyKDE (Jim Bublitz) is busy, and partly because the maintainer > of PyQt (Phil Thompson) is not.
Well I feel pretty busy :) I think the difference is one of priorities. We are both concentrating on the activities that puts bread on our respective tables. > I mean, everyone has this problem of maintaining two or three seperate > versions of software as the software goes through major upgrades. That is > unavoidable. The problems with sip, PyQt, and PyKDE is that we are going > through major revisions quite often at this point, and unfortunately, Jim > is not able to keep up with Phil's rapid pace, in addition to the short > upgrade cycles. > > The first solution in my mind is that we need to open up development of > PyKDE so that it can keep up with PyQt. This is being done by Jim right > now, so everything is good there. > > The second solution would be to branch and maintain the earlier releases of > PyQt and sip. People won't have to upgrade to a new version to get a minor > bug fix they need, and so they won't be trapped waiting for PyKDE to come > out. This requires more bodies and time, and both seem to be short in > supply. It also helps to have fewer versions of sip and PyQt to maintain. Branching wouldn't make any difference as there are already two versions - the latest and the one needed by PyKDE. > A third solution would be a sip 3.7.1 that works with PyQt 3.7.0, 3.7.1, > and 3.7.2, if you know what I mean. I think this would alleviate a lot of > issues in all three packages. This is a lot of work to implement, even more > work to maintain, and probably not a good idea at this point. However, > maintaining backwards compatibility is a worthy goal of all software > projects. > > I will add that the barriers I see to people adopting sip, PyQt, and PyKDE > are the problems of getting the right versions to play together, while also > getting the latest bug fixes. It is outright frustrating at times. I myself > stick with the 3.5 supplied with RedHat 8, just so that I can stabilize my > development. I think all three suggestions above should help to lower this > barrier. > > These are just my opinions, based on what I have seen and heard. I hope > they are challenged and corrected as appropriate. I'm not clear what the (technical) reasons are for the delay in PyKDE. The differences between SIP 3.5 and 3.7 are not great - I wouldn't expect that to be a significant reason. How much is down to different KDE releases? Phil _______________________________________________ PyKDE mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mats.imk.fraunhofer.de/mailman/listinfo/pykde