Gentoo Logo
Gentoo Spaceship




Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date. GMANE provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.
c.f. bug 424647
List Archive: gentoo-python
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-python: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Headers:
To: gentoo-python@g.o
From: Maxim Koltsov <maksbotan@g.o>
Subject: python-distutils.eclass vs. python.eclass + distutils.eclass
Date: Sat, 26 May 2012 13:32:30 +0400
Hi,
This can be another troll-thread or layman-thread, but still I think
this question must be raised once more.
I want to say that I personally don't want to use python-distutils-ng
in its current state and I know several active python ebuild writers
that are not Gentoo developers and they don't want to use it too.
First of all, how well is this eclass adapted to packages not using
distutils? Old eclass had set of convenient functions
(python_execute_function, python_generate_wrapper_scripts,
python_conver_shebangs). I see some functions like these ones in new
eclass, but can they serve as good replace and is their API public and
stable?
Then, we think that this ruby-ng style approach with PYTHON_TARGETS is
a bit uncomfortable for end users and developers. This is going to be
pain for all users if eclass gets used widely. Eclass allows developer
not to set PYTHON_COMPAT and populate it with all available values —
well, it's nice. But imagine that Python 3.3 arrives. All ebuilds
using new eclass will get new IUSE and therefore will be rebuilt
during emerge --update --newuse world. That's hardly sensible. It's
awful to rebuild packages which might be very 'heavy' just for
nothing.
On the other hand, if developers are forced to set PYTHON_COMPAT, this
will result in great delays in getting new python support to Gentoo.
You can say that ruby-ng has the same behavior and nobody complains.
But python is not ruby. Ruby 1.8 to 1.9 transitition was connected
with a lot of incompabilities, so one could not assume that ruby-1.8
package will work on 1.9. Python 3.2 to 3.3 transitition should be
harmless and almost all packages will require no changes. So some
implicit mechanism of doing this must be implemented.
So, new eclass has serious problems, old is bad too, not to say here
why, and we have no solution yet :)
But still discussion is needed, or we will end up accepting silently
bad decisions. Please speak up everyone who agrees with me and/or has
any suggestions.


Replies:
Re: python-distutils.eclass vs. python.eclass + distutils.eclass
-- Dirkjan Ochtman
Re: python-distutils.eclass vs. python.eclass + distutils.eclass
-- Michał Górny
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-python: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Previous by thread:
[RFC] Creating Python project overlay
Next by thread:
Re: python-distutils.eclass vs. python.eclass + distutils.eclass
Previous by date:
Re: [RFC] Creating Python project overlay
Next by date:
Re: python-distutils.eclass vs. python.eclass + distutils.eclass


Updated Jun 29, 2012

Summary: Archive of the gentoo-python mailing list.

Donate to support our development efforts.

Copyright 2001-2013 Gentoo Foundation, Inc. Questions, Comments? Contact us.