Re: Bits from the Debian PyCon Hangout - PyPy
Hi Scott (2015.04.15_17:19:39_+0200)
> Since these pypy extension packages are new and there are no applications, I
> think it would make a lot of sense to limit this to PY3. It makes things much
> simpler technically. We should not recreate the symlink farm we used to have
> for python.
>
> I would think that all the reasons we decided separate binaries were a good
> idea for python2/3 would also apply to pypy.
I'm struggling to understand what you're saying.
As I read it, the second paragraph promotes a separate binary package
stack for pypy, the first is against it.
Yeah, don't want symlink farms. But it also seems silly to duplicate
packages with identical contents. It's a lot of work for everyone:
package maintainers & ftp-masters, and causes bloat.
In both pypy and pypy3, we have PEP3147, and so can, technically, share
a dist-packages tree with cpython, without .pyc files clashing. In pypy,
that'd be hacky, in pypy3, that'd be by design - this is what PEP3147
set out to solve.
SR
--
Stefano Rivera
http://tumbleweed.org.za/
+1 415 683 3272
Reply to: