On Wednesday 06 May 2009 13:45:19 Adeodato Simó wrote: > > Description : Simple Python binding to the Linux inotify file > > system event monitoring API > > > > inotifyx is a Python extension providing access to the Linux inotify > > file system event notification API. It is primarily written in C but has > > some Python window dressing. > > Could you please include in the description a few lines on why would one > want to use inotifyx instead of the already available pyinotify bindings? >
Given the pytagsfs upstream maintainer's announcement email [1], I believe python-inotify is not going to be maintained further. But this whole discussion started with python-inotify in experimental, which isn't backward compatible. I'm CCing the python-inotify maintainer. Probably he can give a better status of python-inotify. > By reading the upstream homepage, it already mentions: > | Reasons you might choose inotifyx over pyinotify: > | > | * inotifyx is a C extension and does not use ctypes, making it faster > | and less prone to subtle breakage due to changes in the inotify API. > | > | * inotifyx is a much thinner wrapper around inotify. pyinotify is more > | complicated. It does provide features that inotifyx does not, but > | many of them are not needed by most applications. > | > | * The API provided by pyinotify seems to change in incompatible ways on > | a fairly regular basis and with little justification. inotifyx has a > | simple API that will change rarely, if ever. > > Maybe that's a bit too long for the description, but it should be easy > enough to summarize those arguments for the long description. > Sure I'll reword and include a better description. > By the way, do you have preview packages available already? I don't have one now, but will start working on it soon. [1] https://lists.launchpad.net/pytagsfs/msg00025.html Ritesh -- Ritesh Raj Sarraf RESEARCHUT - http://www.researchut.com "Necessity is the mother of invention."
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
