Re: [Sugar-devel] Port to TelepathyGLib

Hi, On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 3:11 AM, James Cameron wrote: > As you may have seen in my post in the last hour, forks of software > dilute maintainership, and everyone is worse off. > As part of porting to Python 3, we need to port to TelepathyGLib as > well. This is because

Re: [Sugar-devel] Port to TelepathyGLib

Thanks for working on this. As you may have seen in my post in the last hour, forks of software dilute maintainership, and everyone is worse off. As part of porting to Python 3, we need to port to TelepathyGLib as well. This is because there is no maintained static binding of Telepathy for

Re: [Sugar-devel] Port to TelepathyGLib

Hi, I started understanding how Telepathy and DBus work, and porting our code to use their PyGI bindings instead of static bindings, and it looks like a big task. Also, GitHub search gives 72 results https://github.com/search?p=5=org%3Asugarlabs+%22from+telepathy%22=Code=%E2%9C%93 for instances

Re: [Sugar-devel] Port to TelepathyGLib

Digigng into mailing list archives, we discussed this four years ago for previous Port to Python 3 GSoC project [1]. There was also a discussion in March 2014 [2]. Rahul, please read the threads for background information. Very interesting. It was pointed out that collaboration will need care

[Sugar-devel] Port to TelepathyGLib

On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 11:02:49PM +0530, Rahul Bothra wrote: > - Rahul will also contact upstream(s) of Telepathy to ask their > plans of a Python 3.x Telepathy version Telepathy upstream suggested using PyGObject API, available for both Python 2 and Python 3.