Hi Scott (2015.04.15_17:19:39_+0200) > Since these pypy extension packages are new and there are no applications, I > think it would make a lot of sense to limit this to PY3. It makes things > much > simpler technically. We should not recreate the symlink farm we used to have > for python. > > I would think that all the reasons we decided separate binaries were a good > idea for python2/3 would also apply to pypy.
I'm struggling to understand what you're saying. As I read it, the second paragraph promotes a separate binary package stack for pypy, the first is against it. Yeah, don't want symlink farms. But it also seems silly to duplicate packages with identical contents. It's a lot of work for everyone: package maintainers & ftp-masters, and causes bloat. In both pypy and pypy3, we have PEP3147, and so can, technically, share a dist-packages tree with cpython, without .pyc files clashing. In pypy, that'd be hacky, in pypy3, that'd be by design - this is what PEP3147 set out to solve. SR -- Stefano Rivera http://tumbleweed.org.za/ +1 415 683 3272 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150415152430.gd3...@bach.rivera.co.za