Re: Python bindings using cppyy (was: An update on Python bindings)

Luca Beltrame <[email protected]> Fri, 3 Nov 2017 23:31:12 +0100

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

Il giorno Fri, 3 Nov 2017 16:20:19 +0000
Shaheed Haque <[email protected]> ha scritto:

> *nobody* is likely to help with that problem: the framework owners did
> nothing obvious to either keep PyKDE4 going (out of tree) or to help
> Steve with my earlier SIP based efforts (in tree).

That's because SIP maintained stuff was fragile, didn't even properly
work in non-Ubuntu distributions, and wasn't tested by the CI. You
can't help fixing things you don't know that are broken.

In addition, inter-bindings dependencies weren't tracked so builds
failed at random. And all of this was undocumented so it was even
harder for people without a solid C/C++ background like me to jump in
and try to fix things.

I've spent countless hours trying to package the existing bindings for
openSUSE and I decided it wasn't worth the effort given the 0
maintenance they had. 

This is my main argument *against* out of tree bindings. They should:

- Be part of the framework they refer to (same repo)
- Be tested by the CI

Otherwise it'll be PyKDE4 all it over again.

> cases (Akonadi). I won't be in a position to gain a wider perspective
> until these two are working solidly.

I would suggest not to work with Akonadi at this point. PIM has no ABI
or API stability guarantee, so you'd be left chasing the evolution of
the libs. 

For the reasons I outlined in the past mails, it'd be much better to
use the Frameworks themselves thanks to API and ABI stability policies.

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

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