1 |
Hello, |
2 |
|
3 |
Let's open an official discussion about this. |
4 |
|
5 |
|
6 |
First of all, what happens on Gentoo. The PyPy's build process creates |
7 |
an executable named 'pypy-c'. We install it with this name, and symlink |
8 |
as /usr/bin/pypy-cX.Y for each PyPy version. We don't do any 'common' |
9 |
wrapper for PyPy. |
10 |
|
11 |
Upstream's packaging scripts, however, rename the 'pypy-c' executable |
12 |
to 'pypy'. All other distros I have checked (Arch, Debian, Fedora, |
13 |
Ubuntu) install a single /usr/bin/pypy for them. They don't support |
14 |
multiple versions though. |
15 |
|
16 |
At the point, it seems reasonable to drop our '-c' addition and just |
17 |
use 'pypyX.Y' (+ 'pypy') instead. We could do this starting with 2.1 |
18 |
but... |
19 |
|
20 |
|
21 |
Since v2.1, PyPy has been 'split' into PyPy and PyPy3, the former being |
22 |
Python2 variant and the latter Python3. Both share the same versions |
23 |
(that is, there's PyPy 2.1 and PyPy3 2.1). |
24 |
|
25 |
From what floppym checked, the build process builds plain 'pypy-c' |
26 |
as well. Alike regular PyPy, upstream's scripts rename it to 'pypy'. |
27 |
|
28 |
Since PyPy3 is still in beta, only Arch Linux has packages for it. It |
29 |
installs a single /usr/bin/pypy3 (what a surprise). |
30 |
|
31 |
|
32 |
This raises the question: how should we name our PyPy executables? |
33 |
While I really like the 'pypyX.Y' idea, I don't really want to see |
34 |
'pypy32.1' :). We could go for 'pypy-X.Y' and 'pypy3-X.Y' but that would |
35 |
be inconsistent with CPython (pythonX.Y) and Jython (jythonX.Y0). |
36 |
A somehow ugly alternative would be to use 'pypy-cX.Y' and 'pypy3-cX.Y' |
37 |
but that is quite a custom invention. |
38 |
|
39 |
Your thoughts? |
40 |
|
41 |
-- |
42 |
Best regards, |
43 |
Michał Górny |