On May 10, 2016, at 07:23 PM, Michael Fladischer wrote: >is there a specific reason why there are so few pypy-* packages in the >archive? Is it just a lack of interest or are any practical reasons not >to have them?
I don't think there are too many practical reasons other than every package that wants to add PyPy support has to minimally add a binary package section and some build-deps. For bonus, build-time and/or autopkgtests should also be added and of course the whole extra stack needs testing. I just added PyPy support to pyparsing, but mostly because it's a new dependency of setuptools and Doko requested it. I've also submitted a bug and patch to autodep8 to recognize and generate PyPy test suites (#823883). >I just tried to add pypy support to some of my packages and it was a >pretty straight forward thing to do. \o/ >If it's just a lack of interest, would anyone be willing to work with >me to add pypy support to packages that are known to be compatible[0]? JFDI, or do you want reviews of the packaging and/or need sponsorship? Then the question is, what about Jython? I guess we don't (yet) have to care about IronPython. Cheers, -Barry
pgphxaAK4A4Z5.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
