Re: An update on Python bindings (Re: A new attempt on PyKDE5 binding generation)

Luca Beltrame <[email protected]> Wed, 6 Sep 2017 00:12:47 +0200

Newsgroups	gmane.comp.kde.devel.bindings,gmane.comp.kde.devel.core
Organization	KDE e.V.
Message-ID	<[email protected]>

Il giorno Tue, 5 Sep 2017 22:12:26 +0100
Shaheed Haque <[email protected]> ha scritto:

Hello Shaheed,

first of all, thanks for continuing work on the bindings!

> https://github.com/ShaheedHaque/extra-cmake-modules/tree/shaheed_master/find-modules/module_generation

Even if WIP, would you mind putting it up for review in Phab? It would
surely be useful for review.

> The good news is that the approach appears to have lived up to my hope
> in that the amount of rule code for PyKF5 needed appears to be

How do you handle Framework tiers and their dependencies? It would be
nice to track dependencies if existing: when packaging the current
bindings, sometimes compilation would fail due to a missing sip file
from another Framework. In an ideal world, CMake would catch that.

> framework with <some ongoing owner other than me for each framework>,
> and consolidate any needed info as Techbase documentation.

Docs are important. In fact, I think this approach should be merged
only with enough docs on:

- How to use it
- How to wrap a Framework
- How to write rules

Lack of these things is what brought PyKDE4 on the state it was.

> On balance, as despite the work that has gone into the SIP approach, I
> propose to explore the cppyy option.

I would want first to have a working implementation in SIP,even just
for familiarity, unless the limitations are so great that the impair
usage.

-- 
Luca Beltrame - KDE Forums team
GPG key ID: A29D259B

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 488 B)