On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 1:08 PM, Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 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.
Okay, I've sent a new patch that adds a PYTHON_IMPLS_NO_STRICT variable.
--
Thanks,
Zac
