[csw-maintainers] Python 2.7

[Ben Walton]

I spent a good amount of effort last fall on 2.7 packaging. I have working
packages and rebuilt a pile of modules... I just didn't get all the way
through the stack. There is a wiki page tracking the process.

This could be dusted off with little effort.

The module directory needs to be versions. Madness lies in the other
direction. :)

Thanks
-Ben
On Jul 18, 2013 5:07 PM, "Maciej (Matchek) Bliziński" <maciej at opencsw.org>
wrote:

> 2013/7/18 Peter FELECAN <pfelecan at opencsw.org>:
> > "Maciej (Matchek) Bliziński" <maciej at opencsw.org> writes:
> >> When that's done, let's discuss what do we want to do about Python
> >> 2.7. Peter's concern is that if we keep the versioned directory, it
> >> will be hard to transition to 2.7. Peter's objective is to package
> >> calibre, which needs Python 2.7 and a number of modules. I suggest
> >> that we build Python 2.7 as it was before r21514, in a versioned
> >> directory, and we build the necessary modules as CSWpy27-foo.
> >
> > Naming the new packages CSWpy27-xxx is not a good idea from my
> > standpoint. What I propose is when we rebuild a Python module package we
> > just use the previous name and have a dependency on CSWpython27.
>
> This will break the 2.6 world. In your scenario:
>
> Before:
> CSWpython (which is Python 2.6)
> CSWpy-foo (built into the unversioned directory)
>
> #!/opt/csw/bin/python2.6
> import foo # works
>
> After:
> CSWpython (which is Python 2.6)
> CSWpython27
> CSWpy-foo (built into the 2.7 versioned directory)
>
> #!/opt/csw/bin/python2.6
> import foo # fails
>
> > Also, we should release a new 2.6 package where the /opt/csw/bin/python
> > path doesn't exist anymore such as the default Python interpreter will
> > be 2.7.
>
> /opt/csw/bin/python should be a symlink driven by alternatives. We
> need to think what should be the default if both 2.6 and 2.7 Pythons
> are installed. I'm thinking that 2.6 should be the default for now.
>
> >> Maybe we could patch Python 2.7 to look into the unversioned directory
> >> for modules - as a backup solution. But we would need to see if this
> >> would break anything or not.
> >
> > It breaks the building of Python 2.7 itself as it will mess with shared
> > objects provided by Python 2.6 which are stored in the unversioned
> > tree. If there is a way to make Python's byzantine build system to not
> > look for shared objects in that path then everything is fine.
>
> So why not simply let Python do its thing, where 2.6 is isolated from
> 2.7? This is the way it works out of the box. You just build stuff you
> need for 2.7 a and you're done.
>
> Maciej
> _______________________________________________
> maintainers mailing list
> maintainers at lists.opencsw.org
> https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers
> .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opencsw.org/pipermail/maintainers/attachments/20130718/4b2aa10d/attachment-0001.html>