On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 12:13 AM, Armin Rigo wrote:
>
> I suppose that we need to *have* a pypy3 first, before any
> conversation like that really makes sense. Last March this wasn't
> even being considered. Now it is maybe in some very draftish early
> planning stage.
The idea is to be proacti
Hi Aaron,
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 11:12 PM, Aaron DeVore wrote:
> From what I can tell, PyPy doesn't have a policy on how package
> maintainers should differentiate between Python 2 and Python 3
> executables. I brought up adding "pypy2" on #pypy in March, but the
> conversation quickly died.
I
2011/8/30 Aaron DeVore
> Possible solution [who uses it for CPython]:
> 1) pypy arbitrary, pypy2 for Python 2, pypy3 for Python 3 [PEP 394, Gentoo]
> 2) pypy for Python 2, pypy3 for Python 3, no pypy2 [Debian family]
> 3) pypy for Python 2, pypy2 for Python 2, pypy3 for Python 3 [Red Hat
> family
