Gentoo Archives: gentoo-python

From: Dirkjan Ochtman <djc@g.o>
To: Mike Gilbert <floppym@g.o>
Cc: gentoo-python@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-python] Testing dev-lang/python version bumps
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 16:35:29
Message-Id: CAKmKYaAzqhH+Y=--RGT7zrHAxM2+1Q6jOtPP0P4b3mhtZiHCnA@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-python] Testing dev-lang/python version bumps by Mike Gilbert
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 17:13, Mike Gilbert <floppym@g.o> wrote:
> To be honest, I did not look into each patch in great detail. I really > just tested the resulting builds to make sure they did not break > anything obvious.
I can imagine, I just think it's probably good if we do look at patches in detail.
>> 3. Added 61_all_process_data.patch, for which the goal seems somewhat unclear. > This is some logic for python-wrapper that was in the 2.7.2 patchset as > well. If you want to drop it, I'm sure that will require some > re-engineering of python-wrapper.
Right. Do you know what this fixes, and how/why it will be re-engineered? As long as we don't know these things, I'd prefer to leave the patch out rather than include it.
>> You also removed the mention of the upstream bug from >> 04_all_libdir.patch, probably just by mistake? > > I don't see any mention of a bug in the 2.7.2, 2.7.3 or 2.7.3-0 version > of the patch, so I'm not sure what you are referring to here.
Are you sure? The 04* patch I just unpacked from my 2.7.3 patch set does have a bug in it (maybe it wasn't in 2.7.2, though).
>> Including >> 26_all_gdbm-1.9.patch in 3.1.5 is probably a good idea. For 3.1.5's >> 09_all_sys.platform_linux2.patch, I'd prefer if we just reuse >> ${FILESDIR}/linux2.patch, unless that doesn't apply for some reason. > > I don't really see a difference either way. I guess it is more visible > in the ebuild.
I like the fact that it's a single patch for all the versions, and that we don't have to manage it separately in the patch sets.
>> Now, we can certainly discuss adding these patches on this list, but I >> think we should try to maintain some balance on the upside of having >> extra fixes in our ebuilds and the amount of maintenance we're willing >> to do on carrying those patches forward (e.g. the distutils patch is a >> pretty big pain, and it seems like more of a feature than a bug). > > Well, that does seem to be Arfrever's baby, so as long as he keeps > rebase it, we should be ok.
Yeah, I'd really prefer to have us not depend on Arfrever for our dev-lang/python updates. IMO we should drop this from 3.3 pending upstream movement.
> That makes sense. I will keep it in mind. > > Would you like me to cut a new set of tarballs without 08, 22, and 23?
That would be perfect. I'd also still like to drop 61 unless we have a clear picture of what/why it helps (and can document that in the patch). Cheers, Dirkjan

Replies