Re: [gentoo-dev] The Python problem
2011-06-27 22:57:05 Thomas Sachau napisał(a):
> Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 15:08, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> >> On 27-06-2011 14:28:34 +0200, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> >> It would be nice when a similar technique could be implemented only
> >> once, in a consistent way. In a way, multilib-portage can be considered
> >> equal to one of the objectives of the python (and ruby) eclass:
> >> multiple times compiling and installing for different ABIs.
> >
> > Yeah, but it'd be nice not to have to compile subversion three times
> > just because we want the python bindings installed in three different
> > Python environments.
>
> You wont be able to prevent this with a general solution, only with some
> specialized solution inside
> the build, if you really want and need that.
> Currently, if you want python bindings for three different python
> environments, you will have to
> build everything for all three python environments, even if you only need a
> subset.
Building everything for all Python ABIs is not required in case of majority of
packages, which
optionally install Python bindings. Makefiles of many packages (including
dev-vcs/subversion)
provide separate targets for building/installation of core libraries and
various bindings.
Example:
src_compile() {
emake || die
if use python; then
python_copy_sources bindings/python
build_python_bindings() {
emake \
PYTHON_INCLUDES="$(python_get_includedir)" \
PYTHON_SITE_PACKAGES="$(python_get_sitedir)" \
python_bindings
}
python_execute_function -s --source-dir bindings/python
build_python_bindings
fi
}
--
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] The Python problem
2011-06-29 02:33:34 Jesus Rivero (Neurogeek) napisał(a): > With python-updater, well, some time ago Ali Polatel implemented some > approaches to get rid of python-updater, by exporting some variable in > ebuilds that needed to be rebuilt when new python versions were > installed. I dont recall what happened with that, but we could think > of some ways to finally get rid of python-updater. He added python_need_rebuild() function, which sets PYTHON_NEED_REBUILD variable, which is checked by python-updater, so that python-updater can avoid checking CONTENTS files in VDB and calling scanelf on all installed files. -- Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] The Python problem
El mié, 29-06-2011 a las 09:18 +0200, Andreas K. Huettel escribió: > Am Mittwoch, 29. Juni 2011, 06:34:52 schrieb Michał Górny: > > > > > As I said it already, we could start doing things simpler in the > > > current python.eclass and maybe that would attract some devs to help > > > out with it, as they find it more comfortable to work with. > > > > I think it would be better to simply start from scratch with > > a clean python-2.eclass. Instead of adding new features and another lot > > of conditionals for EAPI=4, just make that code a part of new eclass. > > > > Ack. The cleanest way would definitely be to start from scratch, and provide > a > long transition period. Please please make things similar compared to the > other language eclasses, though... > Arfrever added support for eapi4 in python-overlay, maybe trying to move it to the tree would be faster :-/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] The Python problem
Am Mittwoch, 29. Juni 2011, 06:34:52 schrieb Michał Górny: > > > As I said it already, we could start doing things simpler in the > > current python.eclass and maybe that would attract some devs to help > > out with it, as they find it more comfortable to work with. > > I think it would be better to simply start from scratch with > a clean python-2.eclass. Instead of adding new features and another lot > of conditionals for EAPI=4, just make that code a part of new eclass. > Ack. The cleanest way would definitely be to start from scratch, and provide a long transition period. Please please make things similar compared to the other language eclasses, though... -- Andreas K. Huettel (dilfridge) Gentoo Linux developer kde, sci, arm, tex
Re: [gentoo-dev] The Python problem
On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 20:03:34 -0430 "Jesus Rivero (Neurogeek)" wrote: > On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 7:58 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman > wrote: > > Hi guys, > [...] > > So I know a bunch of people have already looked at it, and I'd like > > to know: what do you find better about the Ruby approach compared > > to the Python approach? Is it just the size of python.eclass, or > > are there a number of other issues? > > Let´s start by agreeing with the complexity of the Python eclass. And > a heavy change right now, is going to be painful to say the least > because a great deal of packages have been adapted to work the way the > eclass works right now. > > [...] > > As I said it already, we could start doing things simpler in the > current python.eclass and maybe that would attract some devs to help > out with it, as they find it more comfortable to work with. I think it would be better to simply start from scratch with a clean python-2.eclass. Instead of adding new features and another lot of conditionals for EAPI=4, just make that code a part of new eclass. And remember, the more complex code is, the more painful it becomes for things like metadata generation. -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] The Python problem
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 7:58 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: > Hi guys, [...] > So I know a bunch of people have already looked at it, and I'd like to > know: what do you find better about the Ruby approach compared to the > Python approach? Is it just the size of python.eclass, or are there a > number of other issues? > > Cheers, > > Dirkjan > > Let´s start by agreeing with the complexity of the Python eclass. And a heavy change right now, is going to be painful to say the least because a great deal of packages have been adapted to work the way the eclass works right now. I agree with Grobian in what he said about the coding style of the python.eclass, and would love to see that "fixed". I also agree with the redundancy of some variables and I think just using PYTHON_DEPEND should be sufficient to let the PM know what should be done with a specific package. With python-updater, well, some time ago Ali Polatel implemented some approaches to get rid of python-updater, by exporting some variable in ebuilds that needed to be rebuilt when new python versions were installed. I dont recall what happened with that, but we could think of some ways to finally get rid of python-updater. WRT python3, I too believe it is important to have it stable. Thing is, for better or worse, upstream have it stable, and py2 and py3 are going to co-exist for a long time. Thing is, we should really figure out a way to have it stop messing things up. I believe with a proper dependency handling in the eclass, we could get this to work. As I said it already, we could start doing things simpler in the current python.eclass and maybe that would attract some devs to help out with it, as they find it more comfortable to work with. Best regards, -- Jesus Rivero (Neurogeek) Gentoo Developer
Re: [gentoo-dev] The Python problem
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 13:48, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: > Yes, but with slotting you allow different packages to pull in different > slots of python. Furthermore, when you slot a package and mark more than > one slot stable, you're saying that all the stable slots work and don't > "break" the tree. And that's true for Python AFAICT. > About the stages bug (330361), as was discussed to exhaustion on the > bug, mls, IRC and many other locations, python3 isn't added to the > stages by the will or work of releng. Right; I've also stated my opinion on this exhaustively in that bug. Cheers, Dirkjan
Re: [gentoo-dev] The Python problem
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 28-06-2011 07:19, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: > On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 08:54, Joshua Saddler wrote: >> This would be nice, but unfortunately the python maintainer forced >> 3.x on everyone, despite the fact that nothing uses it and no one >> really wanted it made the default. So now it's shipped with all the >> stage tarballs, in addition to 2.7. You've got it whether you want it >> or not. >> >> This is one of the things that needs to be rescinded, along with the >> python eclass changes. Get everyone down to just one version >> of python installed. > > It's just slotting like everything else. (There's an open bug for the stages.) Yes, but with slotting you allow different packages to pull in different slots of python. Furthermore, when you slot a package and mark more than one slot stable, you're saying that all the stable slots work and don't "break" the tree. About the stages bug (330361), as was discussed to exhaustion on the bug, mls, IRC and many other locations, python3 isn't added to the stages by the will or work of releng. > Cheers, > > Dirkjan > - -- Regards, Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / KDE / Elections / RelEng -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJOCb93AAoJEC8ZTXQF1qEPurcQAKj3i7pL22kd2EpmG2+tDdcg us3xE2dQofp6hVkiSkz6LVQuyCEH9QV/jujSkwYJLVPDsGGyXzBIkUGA9iLc2iDQ nJx2r2QqZe11CxOuyd15AomVsLDazDGq8mxkxIBzJl9l9xS5HINqL+D79HxiOsdE oraOL/cr4tbjDLWgraLZMXM/QPUkhqXkQurgn1uF4U4TAkvjZessJwe2Csi6raUW xhJ42HAF+Q+VpFuTlBJfJevNsXnyHR4y6qM4xFF5X6sIyPodz3CORfHBMAXrU/pX MCsMSPRJQRIAc26tEf+V4WJuUsp+yaydejPnEiyZSnDBDmgeS7zgEhQRLAPf+//Y sMEMqchTAkwS4gxyAyl6AoR3+DFlGZdcTmn2S+AbtQNH318Lt3yamGbwRUMpjUHX p8YXxsjL6iigyIUaJt594W1Bc2gS6ktkQGUqERLvM0dYUSoQcZJCeWq7y+qO/3vF uukqOnljgSEvucijeHUM3623ImgpoCw3tzw7UGz74PunqqqL37op7FxX55exyYWw TjzDqFEPlnaNQNvD3E3dZdU+/KnUlmn9Jtbxv/o04unVfEFspGP9DeuZYUOolWAG 86LFsL9PeSGLhqgxWbFjMR4lmznilnlaaB+4MmEtMV3K3FGdsI/68dhGRNe+oEC7 8JTT1DDZpunk0coni/f3 =aUwd -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] The Python problem
On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 10:04:58 +0200 Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: > On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 21:31, Michał Górny wrote: > > Working targets. USE_PYTHON is junk. What python.eclass does now > > with ABIs is a PITA, and requires manually providing a lot of > > redudant information (namely, RESTRICT_PYTHON_ABIS). > > Please clarify *why* it is a PITA, and what information is redundant. Let's put it like that. I have package foo which support py2 and py3. It depends on package bar which once supported py3 but the newest version is known to be broken with py3, and thus breaks building my package as well. And right now there's no real way to handle that dependency. With SLOT-USEdeps I could do 'bar[py3=]'. With current state of Python eclass I have to restrict ABIs to match newer version and/or restrict dependency versions which is awfully redundant. > > I'd like to see that fixed somehow. I'd like to set a single > > supported Python version information in an ebuild, and let the > > dependency resolver handle everything else. > > That would be bad; it's common and useful to have packages installed > in both 2.6 and 2.7 (and even 3.1). I think you misunderstood me. I mean generating the whole dependency tree from support Python versions. Like dropping version info from PYTHON_DEPEND in favor of RESTRICT_PYTHON_ABIS. -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] The Python problem
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 22:46, Petteri Räty wrote: >> Sure, but if that means the developers now have to bump every package >> in the tree when a new version of Python comes out, I'm not sure >> that's the best trade-off. > > And why can't this be handled by the eclass? If the ebuild is able to > specify it supports >=3.0 meaning it's expected that future versions > work then the eclass can make the new values available through IUSE when > new python versions are out and ebuilds don't require any changes. I'd be happy to get that to work, it seems like a good solution. Cheers, Dirkjan
Re: [gentoo-dev] The Python problem
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 21:31, Michał Górny wrote: > Working targets. USE_PYTHON is junk. What python.eclass does now with > ABIs is a PITA, and requires manually providing a lot of redudant > information (namely, RESTRICT_PYTHON_ABIS). Please clarify *why* it is a PITA, and what information is redundant. > Right now, each ebuild has to provide the same information in > PYTHON_DEPEND and RESTRICT_PYTHON_ABIS. Moreover, if an ebuild > supports, say, py3 and its dependency doesn't, the ebuild has to > restrict py3 too. I'll grant you that PYTHON_DEPEND and RESTRICT_PYTHON_ABIS seem redundant, we could probably fix that. > I'd like to see that fixed somehow. I'd like to set a single supported > Python version information in an ebuild, and let the dependency > resolver handle everything else. That would be bad; it's common and useful to have packages installed in both 2.6 and 2.7 (and even 3.1). Cheers, Dirkjan
Re: [gentoo-dev] The Python problem
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 20:23, Benedikt Böhm wrote: > the way python applications are built currently renders all binary > packages useless, since portage does not know which version of python > it was built against. the explicit selection with RUBY_TARGETS or > PHP_TARGETS solves this problem at the small cost of commiting new > values to these variables from time to time. I don't think updating all Python packages every two years is a small cost, particularly when a large percentage of those packages will just work on the new version. (Another problem with the current Ruby approach is that it's impossible to support unstable interpreters or versions from in stable package versions, such that Ruby packages now often have multiple ebuild revisions for stable and unstable interpreters.) Cheers, Dirkjan
Re: [gentoo-dev] The Python problem
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 08:54, Joshua Saddler wrote: > This would be nice, but unfortunately the python maintainer forced > 3.x on everyone, despite the fact that nothing uses it and no one > really wanted it made the default. So now it's shipped with all the > stage tarballs, in addition to 2.7. You've got it whether you want it > or not. > > This is one of the things that needs to be rescinded, along with the > python eclass changes. Get everyone down to just one version > of python installed. It's just slotting like everything else. (There's an open bug for the stages.) Cheers, Dirkjan
Re: [gentoo-dev] The Python problem
On Mon, 27 Jun 2011 16:49:23 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote: > if you dont want multiple builds on your system, then dont install > multiple versions of python. > -mike This would be nice, but unfortunately the python maintainer forced 3.x on everyone, despite the fact that nothing uses it and no one really wanted it made the default. So now it's shipped with all the stage tarballs, in addition to 2.7. You've got it whether you want it or not. This is one of the things that needs to be rescinded, along with the python eclass changes. Get everyone down to just one version of python installed. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] The Python problem
On Mon, 2011-06-27 at 16:52 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Monday, June 27, 2011 12:00:19 Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 17:53, Petteri Räty wrote: > > > I like the ruby approach for the reason that it doesn't require users to > > > run update scripts like python-updater. > > > > Sure, but if that means the developers now have to bump every package > > in the tree when a new version of Python comes out, I'm not sure > > that's the best trade-off. > > if that's the requirement, i'd lean towards the python route we have today. > especially because python-updater will hit all necessary packages where-as > ruby will often not as that requires you to do `emerge -u packages>`. This approach works for ruby because we have multiple implementations (e.g. jruby, hopefully rubinius soon) rather than just multiple versions, and because major version updates that break compatibility are rare. Bumping happens more often than new versions or implementations come out, and we can't expect implementations to be fully compatible. Note that minor versions (ruby 1.8.6 vs ruby 1.8.7) are usually backward compatible, so we can just swap these in within the slot. I don't really see how a ruby-updater tool would work, so the approach we've taken works for ruby. Hans signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] The Python problem
Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: > On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 15:08, Fabian Groffen wrote: >> On 27-06-2011 14:28:34 +0200, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: >> It would be nice when a similar technique could be implemented only >> once, in a consistent way. In a way, multilib-portage can be considered >> equal to one of the objectives of the python (and ruby) eclass: >> multiple times compiling and installing for different ABIs. > > Yeah, but it'd be nice not to have to compile subversion three times > just because we want the python bindings installed in three different > Python environments. You wont be able to prevent this with a general solution, only with some specialized solution inside the build, if you really want and need that. Currently, if you want python bindings for three different python environments, you will have to build everything for all three python environments, even if you only need a subset. Moving to a similar system like ruby, in the long term maybe based on a general PM-implementation, would users at least allow to select the targets per package and not just global like now. > On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 17:53, Petteri Räty wrote: >> I like the ruby approach for the reason that it doesn't require users to >> run update scripts like python-updater. > > Sure, but if that means the developers now have to bump every package > in the tree when a new version of Python comes out, I'm not sure > that's the best trade-off. For multilib-portage, packages dont need to define the possible cross-compile targets, they have all possible options in the USE flag list. Something similar could be done for this case: Simplified: Define the range of supported python versions in the dependency section and allow the eclass or PM to sort out the rest (you of course need a bit more, but this should be the only required dependency/python-version related part). signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] The Python problem
On Monday, June 27, 2011 12:00:19 Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: > On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 17:53, Petteri Räty wrote: > > I like the ruby approach for the reason that it doesn't require users to > > run update scripts like python-updater. > > Sure, but if that means the developers now have to bump every package > in the tree when a new version of Python comes out, I'm not sure > that's the best trade-off. if that's the requirement, i'd lean towards the python route we have today. especially because python-updater will hit all necessary packages where-as ruby will often not as that requires you to do `emerge -u `. -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] The Python problem
On Monday, June 27, 2011 09:43:05 Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: > On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 15:08, Fabian Groffen wrote: > > It would be nice when a similar technique could be implemented only > > once, in a consistent way. In a way, multilib-portage can be considered > > equal to one of the objectives of the python (and ruby) eclass: > > multiple times compiling and installing for different ABIs. > > Yeah, but it'd be nice not to have to compile subversion three times > just because we want the python bindings installed in three different > Python environments. it'd be nice to not build glibc multiple times for diff multilibs, but it simply isnt possible. either you want multilib support (or in this case multi-python version support), or you dont. if this feature is something like (and it sounds like it is), then this is simply something that is accepted. if you dont want multiple builds on your system, then dont install multiple versions of python. -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] The Python problem
On 27.06.2011 19:00, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: > On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 17:53, Petteri Räty wrote: >> I like the ruby approach for the reason that it doesn't require users to >> run update scripts like python-updater. > > Sure, but if that means the developers now have to bump every package > in the tree when a new version of Python comes out, I'm not sure > that's the best trade-off. > And why can't this be handled by the eclass? If the ebuild is able to specify it supports >=3.0 meaning it's expected that future versions work then the eclass can make the new values available through IUSE when new python versions are out and ebuilds don't require any changes. Regards, Petteri signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] The Python problem
On Mon, 27 Jun 2011 14:28:34 +0200 Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: > So I know a bunch of people have already looked at it, and I'd like to > know: what do you find better about the Ruby approach compared to the > Python approach? Is it just the size of python.eclass, or are there a > number of other issues? Working targets. USE_PYTHON is junk. What python.eclass does now with ABIs is a PITA, and requires manually providing a lot of redudant information (namely, RESTRICT_PYTHON_ABIS). Right now, each ebuild has to provide the same information in PYTHON_DEPEND and RESTRICT_PYTHON_ABIS. Moreover, if an ebuild supports, say, py3 and its dependency doesn't, the ebuild has to restrict py3 too. I'd like to see that fixed somehow. I'd like to set a single supported Python version information in an ebuild, and let the dependency resolver handle everything else. -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] The Python problem
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: > So I know a bunch of people have already looked at it, and I'd like to > know: what do you find better about the Ruby approach compared to the > Python approach? Is it just the size of python.eclass, or are there a > number of other issues? the way python applications are built currently renders all binary packages useless, since portage does not know which version of python it was built against. the explicit selection with RUBY_TARGETS or PHP_TARGETS solves this problem at the small cost of commiting new values to these variables from time to time.
Re: [gentoo-dev] The Python problem
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 17:53, Petteri Räty wrote: > I like the ruby approach for the reason that it doesn't require users to > run update scripts like python-updater. Sure, but if that means the developers now have to bump every package in the tree when a new version of Python comes out, I'm not sure that's the best trade-off. Cheers, Dirkjan
Re: [gentoo-dev] The Python problem
On 27.06.2011 15:28, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: > > So I know a bunch of people have already looked at it, and I'd like to > know: what do you find better about the Ruby approach compared to the > Python approach? Is it just the size of python.eclass, or are there a > number of other issues? > I like the ruby approach for the reason that it doesn't require users to run update scripts like python-updater. Regards, Petteri signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] The Python problem
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 15:08, Fabian Groffen wrote: > On 27-06-2011 14:28:34 +0200, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: >> So I know a bunch of people have already looked at it, and I'd like to >> know: what do you find better about the Ruby approach compared to the >> Python approach? Is it just the size of python.eclass, or are there a >> number of other issues? > > Part of the eclass problem is IMO coding style. Change it to use > normally-sized variable names, and to respect 80-columns width, and it > already becomes much more consumable. That seems like the somewhat more straightforward part. > The whole comparison of Python vs Ruby vs Java and perhaps the outlook > to Perl is kind of hard. What the python eclass accomplishes is very > neat. What probably started as a way to be able to have both python 2.x > and 3.x installed side by side (because the latter is not really > compatible with the former) got IMO out of hand by supporting any python > version to coexist with another. I guess many people developing with > Python actually love this feature, and in itself, I believe it has use > that cannot be ignored any more now. The way in which this feature was > implemented -- sometimes it more felt as pushed through the throat -- is > more of the rebelious kind than the smooth path for ebuild developers. Right. I think the ability to have python packages simultaneously installed in python2.6, python2.7 and pypy1.5, for example, is pretty cool to have. And going from USE to RESTRICT (Ruby vs. Python, right now) is probably more sensible in the Python ecosystem (i.e. where something that runs on 2.6 is likely to also run on 2.7). > It would be nice when a similar technique could be implemented only > once, in a consistent way. In a way, multilib-portage can be considered > equal to one of the objectives of the python (and ruby) eclass: > multiple times compiling and installing for different ABIs. Yeah, but it'd be nice not to have to compile subversion three times just because we want the python bindings installed in three different Python environments. > All in all, I don't fancy a rewrite from scratch, since it all works > at the moment, and doing so takes another large bit of work. Instead, > aligning the work with others to create a similar approach in ebuilds > (for ebuild developers) would be favourable to me. And perhaps that > should mean that variables which contain versions with some syntax that > specify ranges and more should just go, to be replaced by something > which is much less powerful in expressiveness, but much easier to > understand in the general picture, such as the USE-flags from the ruby > eclass. That sounds very similar to what I think would be best. Cheers, Dirkjan
Re: [gentoo-dev] The Python problem
On 27-06-2011 14:28:34 +0200, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: > So I know a bunch of people have already looked at it, and I'd like to > know: what do you find better about the Ruby approach compared to the > Python approach? Is it just the size of python.eclass, or are there a > number of other issues? Part of the eclass problem is IMO coding style. Change it to use normally-sized variable names, and to respect 80-columns width, and it already becomes much more consumable. The whole comparison of Python vs Ruby vs Java and perhaps the outlook to Perl is kind of hard. What the python eclass accomplishes is very neat. What probably started as a way to be able to have both python 2.x and 3.x installed side by side (because the latter is not really compatible with the former) got IMO out of hand by supporting any python version to coexist with another. I guess many people developing with Python actually love this feature, and in itself, I believe it has use that cannot be ignored any more now. The way in which this feature was implemented -- sometimes it more felt as pushed through the throat -- is more of the rebelious kind than the smooth path for ebuild developers. It would be nice when a similar technique could be implemented only once, in a consistent way. In a way, multilib-portage can be considered equal to one of the objectives of the python (and ruby) eclass: multiple times compiling and installing for different ABIs. All in all, I don't fancy a rewrite from scratch, since it all works at the moment, and doing so takes another large bit of work. Instead, aligning the work with others to create a similar approach in ebuilds (for ebuild developers) would be favourable to me. And perhaps that should mean that variables which contain versions with some syntax that specify ranges and more should just go, to be replaced by something which is much less powerful in expressiveness, but much easier to understand in the general picture, such as the USE-flags from the ruby eclass. Just my €0.02 -- Fabian Groffen Gentoo on a different level
Re: [gentoo-dev] The Python problem
Dirkjan Ochtman writes:
> I guess by now pretty much everyone knows that the python eclass is
> rather complex, and that this poses some problems. This has also been
> an important cause for the disagreements between Arfrever and some of
> the other developers. Since it appears that Arfrever won't be
> committing much code to gentoo-x86 in the near future, I'm trying to
> figure out where we should go with the python.eclass. This email is an
> attempt at figuring that out, plus eliciting ideas to come up with a
> general framework that will also solve this for ruby and other similar
> runtimes (while supporting some of the features that the current
> python eclass has, but that ruby-ng doesn't have).
>
> So I know a bunch of people have already looked at it, and I'd like to
> know: what do you find better about the Ruby approach compared to the
> Python approach? Is it just the size of python.eclass, or are there a
> number of other issues?
Let's skip the Ruby step, and go directly to Common Lisp!
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
A bad day in () is better than a good day in {}.
Re: [gentoo-dev] The Python problem
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
A bad day in () is better than a good day in {}.
[gentoo-dev] The Python problem
Hi guys, I guess by now pretty much everyone knows that the python eclass is rather complex, and that this poses some problems. This has also been an important cause for the disagreements between Arfrever and some of the other developers. Since it appears that Arfrever won't be committing much code to gentoo-x86 in the near future, I'm trying to figure out where we should go with the python.eclass. This email is an attempt at figuring that out, plus eliciting ideas to come up with a general framework that will also solve this for ruby and other similar runtimes (while supporting some of the features that the current python eclass has, but that ruby-ng doesn't have). So I know a bunch of people have already looked at it, and I'd like to know: what do you find better about the Ruby approach compared to the Python approach? Is it just the size of python.eclass, or are there a number of other issues? Cheers, Dirkjan
