1 |
On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 6:29 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> Hello, |
3 |
> |
4 |
> Let's open an official discussion about this. |
5 |
> |
6 |
> |
7 |
> First of all, what happens on Gentoo. The PyPy's build process creates |
8 |
> an executable named 'pypy-c'. We install it with this name, and symlink |
9 |
> as /usr/bin/pypy-cX.Y for each PyPy version. We don't do any 'common' |
10 |
> wrapper for PyPy. |
11 |
> |
12 |
> Upstream's packaging scripts, however, rename the 'pypy-c' executable |
13 |
> to 'pypy'. All other distros I have checked (Arch, Debian, Fedora, |
14 |
> Ubuntu) install a single /usr/bin/pypy for them. They don't support |
15 |
> multiple versions though. |
16 |
> |
17 |
> At the point, it seems reasonable to drop our '-c' addition and just |
18 |
> use 'pypyX.Y' (+ 'pypy') instead. We could do this starting with 2.1 |
19 |
> but... |
20 |
> |
21 |
> |
22 |
> Since v2.1, PyPy has been 'split' into PyPy and PyPy3, the former being |
23 |
> Python2 variant and the latter Python3. Both share the same versions |
24 |
> (that is, there's PyPy 2.1 and PyPy3 2.1). |
25 |
> |
26 |
> From what floppym checked, the build process builds plain 'pypy-c' |
27 |
> as well. Alike regular PyPy, upstream's scripts rename it to 'pypy'. |
28 |
> |
29 |
> Since PyPy3 is still in beta, only Arch Linux has packages for it. It |
30 |
> installs a single /usr/bin/pypy3 (what a surprise). |
31 |
> |
32 |
> |
33 |
> This raises the question: how should we name our PyPy executables? |
34 |
> While I really like the 'pypyX.Y' idea, I don't really want to see |
35 |
> 'pypy32.1' :). We could go for 'pypy-X.Y' and 'pypy3-X.Y' but that would |
36 |
> be inconsistent with CPython (pythonX.Y) and Jython (jythonX.Y0). |
37 |
> A somehow ugly alternative would be to use 'pypy-cX.Y' and 'pypy3-cX.Y' |
38 |
> but that is quite a custom invention. |
39 |
> |
40 |
> Your thoughts? |
41 |
> |
42 |
|
43 |
How about pypypy2.1? ;-) |
44 |
|
45 |
Sorry, I couldn't resist. |