Stefano Rivera writes:
> I think we're all kind of waiting for PyPy 3, so that we don't have to
> bring up an entire stack of packages (that few people are going to
> use).
That's one thing I'm waiting for.
Another thing is that many upstream packages don't bother declaring
support for PyPy (he
On May 10, 2016, at 09:56 PM, Tristan Seligmann wrote:
>I think it would be great if we could get performance-sensitive applications
>running on PyPy instead of CPython, but of course this requires the whole
>dependency graph to have pypy-* packages built.
That might be a good approach to buildin
On Tue, 10 May 2016 at 23:29 Stefano Rivera wrote:
> Hi Michael (2016.05.10_19:23:33_+0200)
> > 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 think we're all kind of waitin
Hi Michael (2016.05.10_19:23:33_+0200)
> 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 think we're all kind of waiting for PyPy 3, so that we don't have to
bring up an entire stack
Hi Michael,
On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 07:23:33PM +0200, 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 personally don't support pypy 2.x because:
1) It's
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
6 matches
Mail list logo
