On, Thu Aug 01, 2013, David Naylor wrote: > Hi All, > > The pypy team have released a version of pypy that supports python-3.2 (while > the existing port supports python-2.7). > > I would like to quickly talk about two concepts here: > * python language version (such as python-2.7, python-3.2, etc) > * python implementation version (such as pypy-2.1, jython-?.?, ironpython-?.? > and cpython-2.7) > > > Currently the only supported implementation of python in bsd.python.mk is > cpython and bsd.python.mk assumes the implementation and language version is > the same. Of note, pypy seems to be the only implementation who's version > does not match the language. I would like to eventually teach bsd.python.mk > about different implementations, so with that in mind the current situation > for pypy is: > > The pypy library directory and binary are suffixed with the implementation > version (currently 2.1) however with pypy3 keeping the same version as pypy > (and pypy32.1 is just confusing) how should I handle the version numbering? > > I could think of: > a) use the language version as the suffix (i.e. pypy2.7 and pypy3.2) > b) use a combination of the two (i.e. pypy2.1-2.7 and pypy2.1-2.7) > c) use some other numbering scheme > > I currently prefer using option (a). Your thoughts?
a) would cause a big mismatch when users report errors to the pypy upstream. Do not do it. b) just looks overly complicated to me c) naaaaaaah How about something like: pypy-2.1 (or pypy2-2.1) pypy3-2.1 This would match the pypy versions perfectly in my opinion. (On a side note: do you mind to move pypy betas into a pypy-devel port or such alike? The beta versions currently prevent using pypy as more or less stable replacement for CPython). Cheers Marcus
pgpHjNUj606zY.pgp
Description: PGP signature
