Re: [blfs-dev] Testing without python2 : dead halt at JS60.
On Sun, Dec 15, 2019 at 04:08:09PM +, DJ Lucas via blfs-dev wrote: > On December 15, 2019 8:14:20 AM CST, Ken Moffat via blfs-dev > wrote: > >On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 08:57:09AM +, DJ Lucas via blfs-dev wrote: > >> On December 12, 2019 11:30:59 PM CST, Ken Moffat via blfs-dev > > I'm sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that we can completely scrub it just yet. > Mozilla specifically, has a lot of work to do yet. We could go > python->python3 at this point, but it requires changes in the remaining > python2 packages. > > --DJ > I didn't read your post as suggesting that we could scrub it, I was hoping to find out what needs it (and of course, some of those things are critical to other packages). I just hadn't expected to steam into the buffers before X was in place. Hmm, maybe I could look at building suid X for this exercise, if I can persuade myself to go back to it. ĸen -- We've all got both light and dark inside of us. What matters is the part we choose to act on. -- Sirius Black -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] Testing without python2 : dead halt at JS60.
On Sun, Dec 15, 2019 at 11:35:31AM -0600, Bruce Dubbs via blfs-dev wrote:
> On 12/15/19 10:16 AM, DJ Lucas via blfs-dev wrote:
> > On December 15, 2019 8:14:20 AM CST, Ken Moffat via blfs-dev
> > wrote:
> > > On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 08:57:09AM +, DJ Lucas via blfs-dev wrote:
> > > > On December 12, 2019 11:30:59 PM CST, Ken Moffat via blfs-dev
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > But when I gave it a first go, with python symlinked to python3, the
> > > configure immediately failed:
> > >
> > > ken@plexi /tmp/mozjs-60.8.0/mozjs-build $../js/src/configure
> > > --prefix=/usr \
> > > > --with-intl-api \
> > > > --with-system-zlib \
> > > > --with-system-icu \
> > > > --disable-jemalloc \
> > > > --enable-readline
> > > File "../js/src/../../configure.py", line 65
> > > print("Creating config.status", file=sys.stderr)
> >
> > Sorry, I missed this. Yes this is python3 syntax so something is calling
> > python2 explicitly.
>
To DJ - thanks for confirming. The problem is always finding where
it got called explicitly. Maybe I'll take another look to see if I
can find remaining python2 references.
> A quick check finds 93 files in mozjs-60.8.0 referencing python2. Some
> instances:
>
> python/mozboot/mozboot/base.py:
> MODERN_PYTHON_VERSION = LooseVersion('2.7.3')
>
I think that is the minimum. The items below are possibles.
> python/mozboot/mozboot/archlinux.py:
> SYSTEM_PACKAGES = [
> 'autoconf2.13',
> ...
> 'python2',
> 'python2-setuptools',
> ...
>
> js/src/devtools/rootAnalysis/analyze.py:
> ((os.environ.get('PYTHON', 'python2.7'),
>
> It looks like mozjs needs a major overhaul to eliminate python2.
>
> -- Bruce
Indeed. The "patch" I found was 9800 lines. I haven't counted how
many lines are in my first attempt to update it. I have a severe
dislike of python, as is probably already apparent (the whitespace
issue) and I mostly find the error messages unuseful - if it fails
to find a specific thing, I would hope to get a more-specific
message.
ĸen
> --
> http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev
> FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
> Unsubscribe: See the above information page
--
We've all got both light and dark inside of us.
What matters is the part we choose to act on.
-- Sirius Black
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] Testing without python2 : dead halt at JS60.
On 12/15/19 10:16 AM, DJ Lucas via blfs-dev wrote:
On December 15, 2019 8:14:20 AM CST, Ken Moffat via blfs-dev
wrote:
On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 08:57:09AM +, DJ Lucas via blfs-dev wrote:
On December 12, 2019 11:30:59 PM CST, Ken Moffat via blfs-dev
wrote:
Going forward, perhaps we need to install python3 as both python3
and python, and find a way to stop python2, if it is installed,
installing as python ?
Maybe as simple as:
1. in LFS ln -sv python3 /usr/bin/python
2. in BLFS, if installign python2 :
rm /usr/bin/python
ln -sv python3 /usr/bin/python
??
Yes, I know that upstream python has claimed that python should
still be python2, but I think we're fast going to reach the point
where that causes more trouble than it is worth.
That's not exactly correct. We are at the point where the majority
use python3. We need to get rid of python2 build instructions for
remaining modules that are not dependencies for something else using
python2, sed/patch the remaining packages to explicitly use
'/usr/bin/python2' or '/usr/bin/env python2' and then we are compliant
with the PEP (84 IIRC) with a python->python3 symlink. The big thing is
the "majority" of packages, though it was worded differently IIRC. Arch
can really help here.
For the moment, I'm giving up on this slithering mess.
Maybe I'll try creating the python symlink, or maybe it would be
easier to just start banging my head agaisnt a brick wall.
--DJ
So, I looked at Arch and they are still using python2 for JS60.
Fedora's build uses raw firefoxi68, I'm reluctant to try that.
As I said in my original post: There is an issue for
spidermonkey68 at gnome:
https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gjs/issues/270 which is
apparently waiting for firefox 68.4.0 before it is ready. That
version of firefox should be released at the start of January.
I suspect that when the new spidermonkey appears it _will_ need
the python -> python3 symlink.
In the meantime I found a patch at
https://code.foxkit.us/adelie/packages/blob/f2b5773da19ab397fbe64fd32dacc383cfe4cd77/user/mozjs/python3.patch
from Adelie linux, originally against 52.4. A very strange patch, I
could not get it to apply at all, so in the end I've spent some time
manually running seds for some obvious things (e.g. remove from
__future__) and then attempting to manually apply the other changes.
Of course, some of the code has changed, and I'm sure not everything
is right.
What is most odd about the patch is that the first part has (original)
and (refactored) marks for old and new files, but much later many
other more conventional diffs have been appended, often several for
the same file.
But when I gave it a first go, with python symlinked to python3, the
configure immediately failed:
ken@plexi /tmp/mozjs-60.8.0/mozjs-build $../js/src/configure
--prefix=/usr \
--with-intl-api \
--with-system-zlib \
--with-system-icu \
--disable-jemalloc \
--enable-readline
File "../js/src/../../configure.py", line 65
print("Creating config.status", file=sys.stderr)
Sorry, I missed this. Yes this is python3 syntax so something is calling
python2 explicitly.
A quick check finds 93 files in mozjs-60.8.0 referencing python2. Some
instances:
python/mozboot/mozboot/base.py:
MODERN_PYTHON_VERSION = LooseVersion('2.7.3')
python/mozboot/mozboot/archlinux.py:
SYSTEM_PACKAGES = [
'autoconf2.13',
...
'python2',
'python2-setuptools',
...
js/src/devtools/rootAnalysis/analyze.py:
((os.environ.get('PYTHON', 'python2.7'),
It looks like mozjs needs a major overhaul to eliminate python2.
-- Bruce
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] Testing without python2 : dead halt at JS60.
On December 15, 2019 8:14:20 AM CST, Ken Moffat via blfs-dev
wrote:
>On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 08:57:09AM +, DJ Lucas via blfs-dev wrote:
>> On December 12, 2019 11:30:59 PM CST, Ken Moffat via blfs-dev
> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Going forward, perhaps we need to install python3 as both python3
>> >and python, and find a way to stop python2, if it is installed,
>> >installing as python ?
>> >
>> >Maybe as simple as:
>> >
>> >1. in LFS ln -sv python3 /usr/bin/python
>> >
>> >2. in BLFS, if installign python2 :
>> > rm /usr/bin/python
>> > ln -sv python3 /usr/bin/python
>> >
>> > ??
>> >
>> >Yes, I know that upstream python has claimed that python should
>> >still be python2, but I think we're fast going to reach the point
>> >where that causes more trouble than it is worth.
>>
>> That's not exactly correct. We are at the point where the majority
>use python3. We need to get rid of python2 build instructions for
>remaining modules that are not dependencies for something else using
>python2, sed/patch the remaining packages to explicitly use
>'/usr/bin/python2' or '/usr/bin/env python2' and then we are compliant
>with the PEP (84 IIRC) with a python->python3 symlink. The big thing is
>the "majority" of packages, though it was worded differently IIRC. Arch
>can really help here.
>>
>> >
>> >For the moment, I'm giving up on this slithering mess.
>> >
>> >Maybe I'll try creating the python symlink, or maybe it would be
>> >easier to just start banging my head agaisnt a brick wall.
>> >
>>
>> --DJ
>>
>So, I looked at Arch and they are still using python2 for JS60.
>
>Fedora's build uses raw firefoxi68, I'm reluctant to try that.
>As I said in my original post: There is an issue for
>spidermonkey68 at gnome:
> https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gjs/issues/270 which is
>apparently waiting for firefox 68.4.0 before it is ready. That
>version of firefox should be released at the start of January.
>
>I suspect that when the new spidermonkey appears it _will_ need
>the python -> python3 symlink.
>
>In the meantime I found a patch at
>https://code.foxkit.us/adelie/packages/blob/f2b5773da19ab397fbe64fd32dacc383cfe4cd77/user/mozjs/python3.patch
>from Adelie linux, originally against 52.4. A very strange patch, I
>could not get it to apply at all, so in the end I've spent some time
>manually running seds for some obvious things (e.g. remove from
>__future__) and then attempting to manually apply the other changes.
>Of course, some of the code has changed, and I'm sure not everything
>is right.
>
>What is most odd about the patch is that the first part has (original)
>and (refactored) marks for old and new files, but much later many
>other more conventional diffs have been appended, often several for
>the same file.
>
>But when I gave it a first go, with python symlinked to python3, the
>configure immediately failed:
>
>ken@plexi /tmp/mozjs-60.8.0/mozjs-build $../js/src/configure
>--prefix=/usr \
>> --with-intl-api \
>> --with-system-zlib \
>> --with-system-icu \
>> --disable-jemalloc \
>> --enable-readline
> File "../js/src/../../configure.py", line 65
>print("Creating config.status", file=sys.stderr)
Sorry, I missed this. Yes this is python3 syntax so something is calling
python2 explicitly.
--DJ
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] Testing without python2 : dead halt at JS60.
On December 15, 2019 8:14:20 AM CST, Ken Moffat via blfs-dev
wrote:
>On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 08:57:09AM +, DJ Lucas via blfs-dev wrote:
>> On December 12, 2019 11:30:59 PM CST, Ken Moffat via blfs-dev
> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Going forward, perhaps we need to install python3 as both python3
>> >and python, and find a way to stop python2, if it is installed,
>> >installing as python ?
>> >
>> >Maybe as simple as:
>> >
>> >1. in LFS ln -sv python3 /usr/bin/python
>> >
>> >2. in BLFS, if installign python2 :
>> > rm /usr/bin/python
>> > ln -sv python3 /usr/bin/python
>> >
>> > ??
>> >
>> >Yes, I know that upstream python has claimed that python should
>> >still be python2, but I think we're fast going to reach the point
>> >where that causes more trouble than it is worth.
>>
>> That's not exactly correct. We are at the point where the majority
>use python3. We need to get rid of python2 build instructions for
>remaining modules that are not dependencies for something else using
>python2, sed/patch the remaining packages to explicitly use
>'/usr/bin/python2' or '/usr/bin/env python2' and then we are compliant
>with the PEP (84 IIRC) with a python->python3 symlink. The big thing is
>the "majority" of packages, though it was worded differently IIRC. Arch
>can really help here.
>>
>> >
>> >For the moment, I'm giving up on this slithering mess.
>> >
>> >Maybe I'll try creating the python symlink, or maybe it would be
>> >easier to just start banging my head agaisnt a brick wall.
>> >
>>
>> --DJ
>>
>So, I looked at Arch and they are still using python2 for JS60.
>
>Fedora's build uses raw firefoxi68, I'm reluctant to try that.
>As I said in my original post: There is an issue for
>spidermonkey68 at gnome:
> https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gjs/issues/270 which is
>apparently waiting for firefox 68.4.0 before it is ready. That
>version of firefox should be released at the start of January.
>
>I suspect that when the new spidermonkey appears it _will_ need
>the python -> python3 symlink.
>
>In the meantime I found a patch at
>https://code.foxkit.us/adelie/packages/blob/f2b5773da19ab397fbe64fd32dacc383cfe4cd77/user/mozjs/python3.patch
>from Adelie linux, originally against 52.4. A very strange patch, I
>could not get it to apply at all, so in the end I've spent some time
>manually running seds for some obvious things (e.g. remove from
>__future__) and then attempting to manually apply the other changes.
>Of course, some of the code has changed, and I'm sure not everything
>is right.
>
>What is most odd about the patch is that the first part has (original)
>and (refactored) marks for old and new files, but much later many
>other more conventional diffs have been appended, often several for
>the same file.
>
>But when I gave it a first go, with python symlinked to python3, the
>configure immediately failed:
>
>ken@plexi /tmp/mozjs-60.8.0/mozjs-build $../js/src/configure
>--prefix=/usr \
>> --with-intl-api \
>> --with-system-zlib \
>> --with-system-icu \
>> --disable-jemalloc \
>> --enable-readline
> File "../js/src/../../configure.py", line 65
>print("Creating config.status", file=sys.stderr)
>^
>SyntaxError: invalid syntax
>
>A quick look at https://docs.python.org/3/whatsnew/3.0.html suggests
>that the syntax is correct. So I'm giving up on this attempt to
>find out which parts of my normal desktop still need python2.
>
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that we can completely scrub it just yet.
Mozilla specifically, has a lot of work to do yet. We could go python->python3
at this point, but it requires changes in the remaining python2 packages.
--DJ
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] Testing without python2 : dead halt at JS60.
On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 08:57:09AM +, DJ Lucas via blfs-dev wrote:
> On December 12, 2019 11:30:59 PM CST, Ken Moffat via blfs-dev
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Going forward, perhaps we need to install python3 as both python3
> >and python, and find a way to stop python2, if it is installed,
> >installing as python ?
> >
> >Maybe as simple as:
> >
> >1. in LFS ln -sv python3 /usr/bin/python
> >
> >2. in BLFS, if installign python2 :
> > rm /usr/bin/python
> > ln -sv python3 /usr/bin/python
> >
> > ??
> >
> >Yes, I know that upstream python has claimed that python should
> >still be python2, but I think we're fast going to reach the point
> >where that causes more trouble than it is worth.
>
> That's not exactly correct. We are at the point where the majority use
> python3. We need to get rid of python2 build instructions for remaining
> modules that are not dependencies for something else using python2, sed/patch
> the remaining packages to explicitly use '/usr/bin/python2' or '/usr/bin/env
> python2' and then we are compliant with the PEP (84 IIRC) with a
> python->python3 symlink. The big thing is the "majority" of packages, though
> it was worded differently IIRC. Arch can really help here.
>
> >
> >For the moment, I'm giving up on this slithering mess.
> >
> >Maybe I'll try creating the python symlink, or maybe it would be
> >easier to just start banging my head agaisnt a brick wall.
> >
>
> --DJ
>
So, I looked at Arch and they are still using python2 for JS60.
Fedora's build uses raw firefoxi68, I'm reluctant to try that.
As I said in my original post: There is an issue for
spidermonkey68 at gnome:
https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gjs/issues/270 which is
apparently waiting for firefox 68.4.0 before it is ready. That
version of firefox should be released at the start of January.
I suspect that when the new spidermonkey appears it _will_ need
the python -> python3 symlink.
In the meantime I found a patch at
https://code.foxkit.us/adelie/packages/blob/f2b5773da19ab397fbe64fd32dacc383cfe4cd77/user/mozjs/python3.patch
from Adelie linux, originally against 52.4. A very strange patch, I
could not get it to apply at all, so in the end I've spent some time
manually running seds for some obvious things (e.g. remove from
__future__) and then attempting to manually apply the other changes.
Of course, some of the code has changed, and I'm sure not everything
is right.
What is most odd about the patch is that the first part has (original)
and (refactored) marks for old and new files, but much later many
other more conventional diffs have been appended, often several for
the same file.
But when I gave it a first go, with python symlinked to python3, the
configure immediately failed:
ken@plexi /tmp/mozjs-60.8.0/mozjs-build $../js/src/configure --prefix=/usr
\
> --with-intl-api \
> --with-system-zlib \
> --with-system-icu \
> --disable-jemalloc \
> --enable-readline
File "../js/src/../../configure.py", line 65
print("Creating config.status", file=sys.stderr)
^
SyntaxError: invalid syntax
A quick look at https://docs.python.org/3/whatsnew/3.0.html suggests
that the syntax is correct. So I'm giving up on this attempt to
find out which parts of my normal desktop still need python2.
ĸen
--
We've all got both light and dark inside of us.
What matters is the part we choose to act on.
-- Sirius Black
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
