On 2017-05-09 03:11, Stefan Champailler wrote: > On Tue, 9 May 2017 08:17:36 +0200 Christian Tismer wrote: >> We have been fighting with this structure quite often. >> It is sometimes really hard to keep the repositories in sync >> when we have several open branches in the workings. >> >> To simplify our work, and also to make it easier for everybody >> to work with the project, we are considering to merge the three >> repositories into one: PySide. > > Well, Shiboken being just a tool to build PySide, this makes sense :-)
But... >> I know there are people who are using shiboken separately. >> They need to change their workflow a little bit, because >> they now need to checkout pyside and copy shiboken out of it. ...shiboken *isn't* "just a tool to build PySide". It's a tool to build *Python bindings*. It's true that PySide is the most obvious user (perhaps even the "original customer") of said tool, and that Shiboken certainly gets features added specifically to support PySide, but Shiboken is a good tool that is useful to projects *besides* PySide, some of which definitely don't want to be burdened by having to build PySide in order to produce Python bindings. I haven't been involved recently to have an understanding of how the current setup is causing problems, so I can't offer any meaningful suggestions, but I do worry this will hurt other users of Shiboken. At least, I would like to see that a) distributions can easily package Shiboken and PySide separately, and b) Shiboken can be built from source without also building PySide. -- Matthew _______________________________________________ PySide mailing list PySide@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/pyside
