On April 15, 2015 11:24:30 AM EDT, Stefano Rivera <stefa...@debian.org> wrote: >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.
The first paragraph is about sharing dist-packages (limit things to PY3 and this is ~easy). The second one is about separate binaries. If we are sharing dist-packages, then pypy can probably use the same binary when the content would be the same. Only in cases where the content is different would you duplicate a separate pypy package. Scott K -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/85c7e700-4483-48d6-84ed-95676f4c6...@kitterman.com
