On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 07:26:09AM +0200, Michal Privoznik wrote: > On 19.07.2013 04:04, Doug Goldstein wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Dave Allan <dallan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> I've seen a bunch of interest in python3 [1,2,3]. Has anybody started > >> thinking about python3 bindings for libvirt? > >> > > > > While not really answering your question, I would like to see the > > build system a little more flexible with regards to Python binding > > generation. Currently you have to configure libvirt and it will > > generate bindings for the python it detects (or is supplied) and if > > you want to change that you need to rebuild the entire source tree. > > It'd be nice in the future to be able to build against multiple > > Python's without having to reconfigure and rebuild. > > That's because python bindings need the client implementation. But I > agree that it would be nice if one could just: > > make -C python > > to build the bindings. > > To answer Dave's question, I'm not really into python but isn't 2to3 enough? 2to3 will take a python2 file & spit out a reasonable python3 file. The issue is that, IMHO, we don't want to be in the business of maintaining 2 sets of python bindings. For any C code, I think we want to make sure we use #if conditionals to minimize the extra burden of python3. For the py code, I think we should also aim to try to support 2 & 3 with one set of code. There are some modules you can import which give you access to some python3 style apis from python2, which could help. 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 :| -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list