Re: gnulib-tool.py: Use absolute imports consistently.

2024-04-22 Thread Collin Funk
Hi Bruno, On 4/22/24 7:33 AM, Bruno Haible wrote: > OK, patch welcome. I assume that when Dmitry used this style of assignments, > the Python 2.7 / 3.0 imports were not so well developed as they are today. Here is a patch that removes all the module-specific variables and imports the functions

Re: GNU gnulib: calling for beta-testers

2024-04-22 Thread Bruno Haible
Collin Funk wrote: > > The first workaround should fix trouble similar to what we regularly > > see with 'autom4te.cache': Unnecessary difference while comparing source > > trees, unnecessary "git status" noise. Clutter. > > I don't think the Python stuff should clutter 'git status' atleast. > >

Re: diffutils __pycache__ failure.

2024-04-22 Thread Bruno Haible
Collin Funk wrote: > >> I have no clue if this has a noticeable performance impact or not. > > > > Can you measure it, please? For example, with > > GNULIB_TOOL_IMPL=py time ./test-all.sh > > > > I measure a difference in the 2% range, but it's not clear to me whether > > -B slows down or

Re: GNU gnulib: calling for beta-testers

2024-04-22 Thread Collin Funk
On 4/22/24 4:22 AM, Bruno Haible wrote: > The first workaround should fix trouble similar to what we regularly > see with 'autom4te.cache': Unnecessary difference while comparing source > trees, unnecessary "git status" noise. Clutter. I don't think the Python stuff should clutter 'git status'

Re: diffutils __pycache__ failure.

2024-04-22 Thread Collin Funk
On 4/22/24 4:38 AM, Bruno Haible wrote: > Collin Funk wrote: >> I have no clue if this has a noticeable performance impact or not. > > Can you measure it, please? For example, with > GNULIB_TOOL_IMPL=py time ./test-all.sh > > I measure a difference in the 2% range, but it's not clear to me

Re: full-source bootstrap and Python

2024-04-22 Thread Bruno Haible
Janneke Nieuwenhuizen wrote: > For the current situtation (that's less than great and are > working on to resolve), making essential GNU packages less > bootstrappable is of no consequence. OK. That's what I conjectured. Thanks for confirming. > Cleaning-up the full-source > bootstrap and making

Re: gnulib-tool.py: Use absolute imports consistently.

2024-04-22 Thread Bruno Haible
Hi Collin, > I want to make the imports and use of functions from other modules > consistent. This patch makes all files use absolute imports like > main.py. So this: > >from pygnulib.GLEmiter import GLEmiter > > instead of: > >from .GLEmiter import GLEmiter Consistency is not a good

Re: printf functions without INT_MAX limitation

2024-04-22 Thread Bruno Haible
On Montag, 22. April 2024 09:27:47 CEST Paul Eggert wrote: > >- off_t changes depending on whether gl_LARGEFILE is in use or not; > > thus it's a bad idea to use it in the API of any shared library or > > (more generally) any independently-built component. > > That ship sailed long

Re: diffutils __pycache__ failure.

2024-04-22 Thread Bruno Haible
Collin Funk wrote: > I have no clue if this has a noticeable performance impact or not. Can you measure it, please? For example, with GNULIB_TOOL_IMPL=py time ./test-all.sh I measure a difference in the 2% range, but it's not clear to me whether -B slows down or speeds up things :) Bruno

Re: full-source bootstrap and Python

2024-04-22 Thread Simon Josefsson via Gnulib discussion list
Janneke Nieuwenhuizen writes: >> Also, from the diagrams in [1][2][3] it looks like the full-source bootstrap >> uses tarballs frozen in time (make-3.80, gcc-2.95.3, gcc 4.7.3, etc.). So, >> even if newer versions of 'make' or 'gcc' will use a Python-based >> gnulib-tool, >> there won't be a

Re: GNU gnulib: calling for beta-testers

2024-04-22 Thread Bruno Haible
Thanks for the report, Paul. Thanks for the preliminary investigation, Collin. > > ./bootstrap > > ./configure > > make -k distclean > > git submodule foreach git pull origin master > > git commit -m 'build: update gnulib submodule to latest' gnulib > > ./bootstrap --no-git

Re: full-source bootstrap and Python

2024-04-22 Thread Bruno Haible
Simon Josefsson wrote: > If we want to minimize the work for full-source bootstrap people we > increase the cost of people maintaining modern software, and vice versa, +1 > Consider the > extreme situation where gnulib-tool version A would require coreutils > verison B, and coreutils version B+1

Re: full-source bootstrap and Python

2024-04-22 Thread Janneke Nieuwenhuizen
Bruno Haible writes: Hi! > Janneke Nieuwenhuizen wrote: >> Are are we creating a problem for >> bootstrapping (or even a dependency cycle) when introducing this new >> dependency into a certain package. > > I think you answered this question with "no", when writing in [1]: > > "Even more

diffutils __pycache__ failure.

2024-04-22 Thread Collin Funk
On 4/22/24 1:23 AM, Collin Funk wrote: > It looks like it can be turned off with 'python3 -B' or setting the > PYTHONDONTWRITEBYTECODE environment variable to a non-empty string [1] > [2]. I was able to reproduce the issue. Modifying the 'gnulib-tool.py' shell script in the 'gnulib' submodule so

Re: GNU gnulib: calling for beta-testers

2024-04-22 Thread Collin Funk
Hi Paul, On 4/22/24 12:56 AM, Paul Eggert wrote:> export GNULIB_TOOL_IMPL=sh+py > ./bootstrap > ./configure > make -k distclean > git submodule foreach git pull origin master > git commit -m 'build: update gnulib submodule to latest' gnulib > ./bootstrap --no-git

Re: GNU gnulib: calling for beta-testers

2024-04-22 Thread Mohammad Akhlaghi
Thank you very much Bruno and Paul, I will look into the links. It is great that gnulib-tool does not use Python packages, but only the core of Python from its own tarball :-). Cheers, Mohammad

Re: GNU gnulib: calling for beta-testers

2024-04-22 Thread Paul Eggert
On 2024-04-21 03:52, Bruno Haible wrote: 5. Regenerate the fetched and generated files of your package. Depending on the package, this may be a command such as $ ./bootstrap --no-git --gnulib-srcdir=$GNULIB_SRCDIR I had a failure with this step when using current GNU diffutils

Re: full-source bootstrap and Python

2024-04-22 Thread Simon Josefsson via Gnulib discussion list
Bruno Haible writes: > Janneke Nieuwenhuizen wrote: >> Are are we creating a problem for >> bootstrapping (or even a dependency cycle) when introducing this new >> dependency into a certain package. > > I think you answered this question with "no", when writing in [1]: > > "Even more recently

Re: printf functions without INT_MAX limitation

2024-04-22 Thread Paul Eggert
On 2024-04-21 14:36, Bruno Haible wrote: But direct use of off_t has two problems: - off_t is not defined by ISO C; thus it's an odd return type for things like zsprintf. I was thinking that zsprintf should return ptrdiff_t and zprintf would return off_t. off_t is defined by POSIX ,

Re: GNU gnulib: calling for beta-testers

2024-04-22 Thread Paul Eggert
On 2024-04-21 15:27, Bruno Haible wrote: ISO C, btw, is also "ever-changing" Yes, plus if a language is not "ever-changing" it's dead. The main thing to worry about is when old code stops working not when new language features get added. Since Python 3 came out Python has been reasonably

Re: future Python evolution

2024-04-22 Thread Paul Eggert
On 2024-04-21 15:38, Bruno Haible wrote: Hi Paul, But the concepts of the shell are stuck in the 40-years-ago past. True, but keeping things simple allows for optimizations like PaSH that can't reasonably be done to Python. https://binpa.sh/ Well, I did try PaSh on gnulib-tool — this