Released around 1st July. But there's one other thing. Regarding bug 438552 (shiboken 1.2.0 is still affected): After adding: sed -i -e "s:python3.2mu:python3.3 python3.2mu:" \ cmake/Modules/FindPython3Interp.cmake || die sed -i -e "s:3.2 3.1 3.0:3.3 3.2 3.1 3.0:" \ cmake/Modules/FindPython3Libs.cmake || die and correcting all three affected ebuilds (including pyside-tools, which didn't have a new version), all three packages build fine with python3.3. Haven't tested if they actually work though.
An important afterthought: I must stress, That I've only tested with PYTHON_TARGETS="python2_7 python3_3", so I can't really tell if something wouldn't break if both 3.2 and 3.3 were selected. In such case, those cmake macros (in shiboken) would need a more comprehensive fix.
Well, if upstream doesn't support python3.3, we're not going to add the support ourselves...
I suspect it's more of a case of them being not well versed in cmake macro syntax, than actually not supporting 3.3. After all, these macros are written in a way that somewhat reminds me of boost autotools/cmake macros (at least the cmake one had an *explicit* list of boost versions (though that one had a var to override the list)). There is i.e. https://bugreports.qt-project.org/browse/PYSIDE-157, which would suggest that someone at least in part tested pyside with python3.3 (unless there's a different use for shiboken than pyside). The patch in that bug is quite alike to the effect of my seds.
Bumped, thanks! If you're interested in python3.3 support, I suggest you open another bug and, most importantly, have your patches applied upstream.
Well, given there's already an upstream bug and there's no notable activity there (not even stating whether or not is pyside 1.1.2 compatible with python 3.3), it seems there's a lack of interest/resources upstream.
Can you reconsider fixing the detection to handle 3.3? It blocks others (that end up blocking more and more) Thanks
Pacho, this bug was about the 1.2.0 version bump, can you please avoid turning it into something else? especially after it was fixed. As I said in comment #4, open another bug.
(In reply to Davide Pesavento from comment #7) > Pacho, this bug was about the 1.2.0 version bump, can you please avoid > turning it into something else? especially after it was fixed. > As I said in comment #4, open another bug. Sure, sorry, will look at it later
Actually, while I've called it a version bump, python 3.3 thing was a major part of why I've filed it in the first place.
