[PySide] Merging pyside-setup, shiboken and pyside

Matthew Woehlke mwoehlke.floss at gmail.com
Tue May 9 19:08:45 CEST 2017


On 2017-05-09 03:11, Stefan Champailler wrote:
> On Tue, 9 May 2017 08:17:36 +0200 Christian Tismer wrote:
>> We have been fighting with this structure quite often.
>> It is sometimes really hard to keep the repositories in sync
>> when we have several open branches in the workings.
>>
>> To simplify our work, and also to make it easier for everybody
>> to work with the project, we are considering to merge the three
>> repositories into one: PySide.
>
> Well, Shiboken being just a tool to build PySide, this makes sense :-)

But...

>> I know there are people who are using shiboken separately.
>> They need to change their workflow a little bit, because
>> they now need to checkout pyside and copy shiboken out of it.

...shiboken *isn't* "just a tool to build PySide". It's a tool to build
*Python bindings*. It's true that PySide is the most obvious user
(perhaps even the "original customer") of said tool, and that Shiboken
certainly gets features added specifically to support PySide, but
Shiboken is a good tool that is useful to projects *besides* PySide,
some of which definitely don't want to be burdened by having to build
PySide in order to produce Python bindings.

I haven't been involved recently to have an understanding of how the
current setup is causing problems, so I can't offer any meaningful
suggestions, but I do worry this will hurt other users of Shiboken.

At least, I would like to see that a) distributions can easily package
Shiboken and PySide separately, and b) Shiboken can be built from source
without also building PySide.

-- 
Matthew



More information about the PySide mailing list