STINNER Victor <vstin...@python.org> added the comment: Miro Hrončok ran rpmdiff to compare the Fedora with the old downstream patches and with the new upstream commit 8510f430781118d9b603c3a2f06945d6ebc5fe42: compare the Python package with and without setup.py changes.
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python39/pull-request/31#comment-39392 In short, there is no difference. Moreover, Miro Hrončok, Matej Cepl and me don't know the rationale of these setup.py changes. I propose to drop them and wait until someone complains. If someone complains, we would know the rationale and so have a good reason to have these setup.py changes. For readline: Fedora libreadline is already linked to libtinfo and so setup.py doesn't go up to `self.compiler.find_library_file(self.lib_dirs + ['/usr/lib/termcap'], 'termcap')` code path. This code is deadcode on Fedora. For /usr/local/lib vs /usr/local/lib64: I'm not sure why /usr/local/lib is used in the first place. Fedora installs libraries in /usr, not in /usr/local. Maybe it's there for users who install dependencies without Fedora: by installed them manually in /usr/local. Again, since it's unclear how /usr/local is supposed to be used, I prefer to leave it unchanged. I closed the PR 18917. Morevoer, if it becomes an issue in Fedora, we can start with a downstream patch again, to see how it goes, before going directly upstream. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue1294959> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
