On 2012-10-10 16:00:40 +0000, Alex Clark said:
On 2012-10-09 20:26:37 +0000, Brian Crowell said:
On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 3:11 PM, Mark Sienkiewicz <sienk...@stsci.edu> wrote:
From what I read of Pillow, they aren't really interested in maintaining a
copy of PIL. Do you mean to fork Pillow, or try to persuade them to let you
help maintain it?
I want to contribute code that would make Pillow Python 3-capable so
that Debian/Ubuntu might pick it up, and Python 3 developers would
finally have their PIL back. I gathered from the notes that Pillow was
a continuation of PIL as a fork, and since it's active, I expect it
will be more attractive to the distros than a straight port of PIL
1.1.7.
I hoped to hear from Alex Clark. He looks like the main contributor.
Test. Just wrote a long message and it hasn't made it through yet. Grrr…
And… I can't find my sent messages in Unison. Here's a recap of the highlights:
- I spoke with Felix Schwarz from the Fedora project about including
Pillow in Fedora. So from what I read earlier in this thread about
Debian, that means we potentially have two Linux vendors contemplating
inclusion of Pillow now?
- Pillow started as a packaging fork, but I now consider image code
fixes if they are tracked upstream (by ticket or commit).
- I've been considering adding Python 3 support to Pillow. I'm not
going to do the work, but I will help whoever does. I assume that
involves picking the an approach from the "best of" attempts. Python
2.7 and 3.3 support sounds reasonable to me. If someone wants Python
2.6 they can use an older Pillow release or PIL itself. We may even
back port to the older releases.
Alex
--Brian
_______________________________________________
Image-SIG maillist - Image-SIG@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/image-sig
--
Alex Clark · https://www.gittip.com/aclark4life/
_______________________________________________
Image-SIG maillist - Image-SIG@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/image-sig
