Il giorno Fri, 3 Nov 2017 16:20:19 +0000 Shaheed Haque <srha...@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 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
pgpl7cyEaFiEF.pgp
Description: Firma digitale OpenPGP
