Python bindings using cppyy (was: An update on Python bindings)
lbeltrame at kde.org
Fri Nov 3 22:31:12 GMT 2017
Il giorno Fri, 3 Nov 2017 16:20:19 +0000
Shaheed Haque <srhaque at theiet.org> 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
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
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: Firma digitale OpenPGP
More information about the kde-core-devel