On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 9:08 PM, Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu.viz...@collabora.co.uk> wrote: > On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 22:37, John Palmieri <jo...@redhat.com> wrote: >> Hmm, seems my original e-mail never made it to the list. Thanks for posting >> this Tomeu. >> >> ----- "John Stowers" <john.stowers.li...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, 2010-08-20 at 17:54 +0200, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: >>> > Hi all, >>> > >>> > as you may know J5 is working on the Python3 port of PyGObject and >>> he >>> > has found that porting the gio static bindings is a lot of work and >>> > somewhat useless as the rest of the static bindings aren't likely >>> to >>> > be ported to Python 3 at all. >>> > >>> > I would like to put for consideration the idea of moving gio from >>> > pygobject to pygtk, so it is not destabilized by pygobject's port >>> to >>> > Python 3. The code generator is in the same situation, so it could >>> > also be moved to pygtk. >>> >>> Would it be easier to put the static gio bindings in their own >>> repository/package? >> >> Easier isn't the word but a one time pain of setting up a new project and >> creating a new autotools build shouldn't be too bad. > > Ok, we need now a volunteer :)
If this is the consensus then I could do it. However, any idea who I would have to poke to create a new repository that also preserves the gio git history? John _______________________________________________ pygtk mailing list pygtk@daa.com.au http://www.daa.com.au/mailman/listinfo/pygtk Read the PyGTK FAQ: http://faq.pygtk.org/