On wto, 2017-05-02 at 12:11 -0700, Zac Medico wrote:
> On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 12:01 PM, Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> > On wto, 2017-05-02 at 11:49 -0700, Zac Medico wrote:
> > > Add forward compatibility up to python3.9. It's helpful to allow some
> > > flexibility in ebuild PYTHON_COMPAT settings, for third-party
> > > repositories that may be used with multiple snapshots of the gentoo
> > > repository.
> > > ---
> > > eclass/python-utils-r1.eclass | 2 +-
> > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/eclass/python-utils-r1.eclass b/eclass/python-utils-r1.
> >
> > eclass
> > > index 66a359e..997a994 100644
> > > --- a/eclass/python-utils-r1.eclass
> > > +++ b/eclass/python-utils-r1.eclass
> > > @@ -70,7 +70,7 @@ _python_impl_supported() {
> > > python2_7|python3_[456]|jython2_7)
> > > return 0
> > > ;;
> > > - pypy1_[89]|pypy2_0|python2_[56]|python3_[123])
> > > + pypy1_[89]|pypy2_0|python2_[56]|python3_[123789])
> > > return 1
> > > ;;
> > > pypy|pypy3)
> >
> > Sounds like a very bad idea. How can you even think of adding
> > an implementation if you don't know what the eclass API for it would be?
> >
>
> For my use case, we're adding python3_6 to PYTHON_COMPAT, and still using
> those ebuilds with older snapshots of the gentoo repository from a few
> months back (as well as newer snapshots). So, there's really no danger in
> my case.
>
> With my suggested change, the eclass doesn't make any API guarantees.
> Where's the harm?Unless I'm missing something, this is going to cause the eclass to accept (and ignore) accidental use of python3_7. It's confusing, to say the least. If you really want to do weird stuff, you're on your own. -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
