[libvirt] RFC: Splitting python binding out into a separate repo & ading to PyPi

[Daniel P. Berrange]

On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 01:27:50PM +0200, Nicolas Sebrecht wrote:
> The 29/08/13, Eric Blake wrote:
> > On 08/29/2013 05:24 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > > 
> > > I don't think these issues are going to go away, in fact I think they
> > > will likely become more pressing, until the point where some 3rd party
> > > takes the step of providing libvirt python bindings themselves. I don't
> > > think we want to let ourselves drift into the situation where we loose
> > > control over releasing libvirt python bindings.
> > 
> > Splitting the python bindings into their own project makes sense to me.
> >  We've got enough interest in python on this list that I'm not too
> > worried about enforcing that new APIs to the main project be accompanied
> > with patches to libvirt-python.git, and keep up with a release of the
> > bindings for each upstream release.
> 
> I'm a bit out of topic but I feel good benefits with the APIs having its
> own releases.
> 
> Notice I'm talking about the APIs. What makes it hard for small projects
> to use the python bindings are the API changes (up to the point that I
> don't use them). I guess this issue will stand as long as the APIs keep
> highly tied to the python bindings.

Err, what API changes are you talking about ?  Both the libvirt C API,
and any language bindings, including the python, are intended to be long
term stable APIs. We only ever add new APIs or flags - never change
existing APis.

Daniel
-- 
|: http://berrange.com      -o-    http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org              -o-             http://virt-manager.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org       -o-         http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: http://entangle-photo.org       -o-       http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|