On Sat, 2020-11-21 at 16:59 +0100, Morten Linderud via arch-dev-public wrote: > On Sat, Nov 21, 2020 at 04:47:27PM +0100, David Runge wrote: > > On 2020-11-21 14:34:24 (+0000), Filipe Laíns via arch-dev-public > > wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > > > I want to propose adding all active Python versions to > > > [community], not > > > just the latest one. This would only entail adding the > > > interpreter > > > itself, no other packages. > > > > > An alternative (in a per-user setup) can be to use pyenv [1]. It > > works > > reasonably well with tox etc. and I have used it in the past > > successfully to develop against several python interpreter > > versions. > > I'm personally not very excited for the idea of adding more python > interpreters. > I'm a bit concerned that we today say "no packages" but in the future > we relax a > bit and end up with python36-$pkgname, as it's the pragmatic option > as opposed > to blocking entire rebuilds or package updates.
We can add a guideline blocking this. > What is the downsides of utilizing something like pyenv? There are > user > repositories providing older python interpreters as well if people > need it. > pyenv forces users to compile the Python interpreter themselves, which can take a long time with --enable-optimizations. None of the user repos available builds with optimizations, or has signed packages AFAIK. Of course they could in the future, but I think having the packages in the repos is much better in terms of security and usability. I run one of the user which provides these packages and I don't see myself fixing any of the issues I pointed out due to technical limitations. Cheers, Filipe Laíns
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part