Hi, On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 3:11 AM, James Cameron <qu...@laptop.org> 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 there is no maintained static binding of > Telepathy for Python 3. > If we were to bundle Telepathy inside Sugar, we would most likely lose > automatic maintenance of Telepathy. Downstream distribution packagers > know about this risk, and often give upstream projects a nudge about > it. An example is the Rsvg static binding that, while it was quite > trivial, became a hot topic and eventually caused our GTK+ 2 toolkit > to be dropped from Debian and Ubuntu, despite other GTK+ 2 > applications remaining. Thanks for the detailed explanation. I agree, we should port. > We may face other ports as well. We're yet to uncover them, and may > only uncover them by trying to run the code. I'm hoping we don't have > to port from static binding for D-Bus, but I won't know until we test > the code. Yes, I am not yet sure about D-Bus > Don't worry about the 72 results of search; > 1. many of those activities don't work now, so there would be no > significant gain from porting them, > 2. some activities are not in https://github.com/sugarlabs/ > 3. best to concentrate on the "Fructose" set of demonstration > activities, Sure, I will keep this in mind, Thank you > Perhaps the patterns of change can be expressed as a sed(1) script and > added to your sugar-docs Port to Python 3 checklist? This will help > people like me who have activities to maintain. Sure, I will make one soon. Thanks Rahul Bothra (Pro-Panda)
_______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel