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

Luca Beltrame lbeltrame at
Fri Nov 3 22:31:12 GMT 2017

Il giorno Fri, 3 Nov 2017 16:20:19 +0000
Shaheed Haque <srhaque at> 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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: Firma digitale OpenPGP
URL: <>

More information about the kde-core-devel mailing list