1 |
On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 12:01 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> On wto, 2017-05-02 at 11:49 -0700, Zac Medico wrote: |
4 |
> > Add forward compatibility up to python3.9. It's helpful to allow some |
5 |
> > flexibility in ebuild PYTHON_COMPAT settings, for third-party |
6 |
> > repositories that may be used with multiple snapshots of the gentoo |
7 |
> > repository. |
8 |
> > --- |
9 |
> > eclass/python-utils-r1.eclass | 2 +- |
10 |
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) |
11 |
> > |
12 |
> > diff --git a/eclass/python-utils-r1.eclass b/eclass/python-utils-r1. |
13 |
> eclass |
14 |
> > index 66a359e..997a994 100644 |
15 |
> > --- a/eclass/python-utils-r1.eclass |
16 |
> > +++ b/eclass/python-utils-r1.eclass |
17 |
> > @@ -70,7 +70,7 @@ _python_impl_supported() { |
18 |
> > python2_7|python3_[456]|jython2_7) |
19 |
> > return 0 |
20 |
> > ;; |
21 |
> > - pypy1_[89]|pypy2_0|python2_[56]|python3_[123]) |
22 |
> > + pypy1_[89]|pypy2_0|python2_[56]|python3_[123789]) |
23 |
> > return 1 |
24 |
> > ;; |
25 |
> > pypy|pypy3) |
26 |
> |
27 |
> Sounds like a very bad idea. How can you even think of adding |
28 |
> an implementation if you don't know what the eclass API for it would be? |
29 |
> |
30 |
|
31 |
For my use case, we're adding python3_6 to PYTHON_COMPAT, and still using |
32 |
those ebuilds with older snapshots of the gentoo repository from a few |
33 |
months back (as well as newer snapshots). So, there's really no danger in |
34 |
my case. |
35 |
|
36 |
With my suggested change, the eclass doesn't make any API guarantees. |
37 |
Where's the harm? |
38 |
-- |
39 |
Thanks, |
40 |
Zac |