Gentoo Archives: gentoo-python

From: Mike Gilbert <floppym@g.o>
To: djc@g.o
Cc: gentoo-python@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-python] Testing dev-lang/python version bumps
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 15:13:54
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-python] Testing dev-lang/python version bumps by Dirkjan Ochtman
On 04/27/2012 09:03 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> Thanks for doing this! Sorry it took so long to review them... we > should try to think of some easier review mechanism than putting up a > tarball you have to unpack. > > On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 03:12, Mike Gilbert <floppym@g.o> wrote: >> If we can get some people testing these that would be great. I would >> like to add them to the tree sometime in the next week. > > I wonder, do you have a rationale for including each patch? IMO, > Arfrever has a tendency to diverge a bit further from upstream than I > like, and I note that you've taken in some patches and don't seem to > have gone in upstream.
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. That said, let's dive in!
> These are the differences between my 2.7.3 > patchset and your 2.7.3-0: > > 1. Added 08_all_regenerate_platform-specific_modules.patch, which > doesn't seem to be upstream yet.
Indeed it does not. Based on the feedback in the upstream bug, let's drop it.
> 2. Added back 22_all_turkish_locale.patch, which AFAIK isn't upstream, > nor associated with an open upstream bug?
I can't find a bug for this either.
> 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.
> 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.
> As for 3.2.3, I'm also -1 on including 23_all_h2py_encoding.patch > after reading
> 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.
> 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.
> I don't think we should throw everything out on revbumps or bugfix > releases, but for new releases such as 3.3 I would personally like to > do only the bare minimum of patching. >
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?


File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-python] Testing dev-lang/python version bumps Dirkjan Ochtman <djc@g.o>