On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 02:13, John Stowers
john.stowers.li...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, 2010-08-20 at 17:54 +0200, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
I know that pygtk doesn't have an excess of maintainers right now, but
these modules should be relatively mature already.
Agree. I was one of the first
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
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
On 08/25/2010 01:22 PM, John Stowers wrote:
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 Palmierijo...@redhat.com wrote:
Hmm, seems my original e-mail never made it to the list. Thanks for posting
this Tomeu.
-
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
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
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
