From: Mike Gilbert <floppym@gentoo.org>
To: "Michał Górny" <mgorny@gentoo.org>
Cc: gentoo-python <gentoo-python@lists.gentoo.org>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-python] RFC: Redesign for 'best implementation' in python-r1
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2014 11:41:45 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAJ0EP43iDwkjV4U1TXETRdTb4GveSF7r45K1520jZCk4VbzddQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20141227145043.63b3731e@pomiot.lan>
On Sat, Dec 27, 2014 at 8:50 AM, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> The current design for getting the 'best implementation' is far from
> pretty. It pretty much relies on constant preference order, setting
> Python 2.7 over other implementations for practical reasons. As a side
> effect, various ebuilds rely on that particular order, e.g.:
>
> DEPEND="doc? ( dev-python/epydoc[$(python_gen_usedep 'python2*')] )"
> REQUIRED_USE="doc? ( $(python_gen_useflags 'python2*') )"
>
> which pretty much assumes that *if python2 is enabled*, then any
> version of it will be the best impl. I find this disgusting, and I'd
> like to replace it with something more explicit.
>
Yeah, relying python_compile_all running under python2.7 is no good.
>
> Specifically:
>
> 1. python_export_best becomes deprecated for good,
>
> 2. python_setup changes API to:
>
> python_setup [<impl-wildcard>...]
>
> alike python_gen_* functions, defaulting to '*'. Now it chooses
> the best impl from implementations matching the specified patterns,
> e.g.:
>
> python_setup 'python2*'
>
> would get the best version of CPython 2.
>
> 3. we introduce extra variable for distutils-r1 (oh cruel world, how
> should we name it?!) that applies wildcards to python_*_all() phases.
>
This sounds like a reasonable idea, and a natural extension of the
python_setup function.
>
> As for the choice within the list the algo needs to stay as-is for now.
> However, in the future we could either:
>
> a. respect EPYTHON and fallback to the other algo,
>
> b. respect pre-defined order i.e. 3.4 > 2.7,
>
> c. respect the order in PYTHON_COMPAT -- however that could be a little
> surprising to devs.
>
>
> What are your thoughts?
Starting/ending with EPYTHON from the environment seems wrong, and
doesn't seem to add value anyway.
I would prefer to stick with a predefined order unless someone can
present a case where the ebuild author really needs to control it.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-12-31 16:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-12-27 13:50 [gentoo-python] RFC: Redesign for 'best implementation' in python-r1 Michał Górny
2014-12-28 12:00 ` Michał Górny
2014-12-31 16:41 ` Mike Gilbert [this message]
2015-01-02 23:21 ` Michał Górny
2015-01-02 23:37 ` Michał Górny
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CAJ0EP43iDwkjV4U1TXETRdTb4GveSF7r45K1520jZCk4VbzddQ@mail.gmail.com \
--to=floppym@gentoo.org \
--cc=gentoo-python@lists.gentoo.org \
--cc=mgorny@gentoo.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox