Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.debian.maint.python > #8507

Re: pypy pakages

Path csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.net!news.mixmin.net!aioe.org!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From Barry Warsaw <barry@debian.org>
Newsgroups linux.debian.maint.python
Subject Re: pypy pakages
Date Tue, 10 May 2016 20:10:01 +0200
Message-ID <rxkgx-80L-7@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References <rxjXc-7jo-15@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To debian-python@lists.debian.org
X-Mailbox-Line From debian-python-request@lists.debian.org Tue May 10 18:02:15 2016
Old-Return-Path <barry@debian.org>
X-Amavis-Spam-Status No, score=-11.88 tagged_above=-10000 required=5.3 tests=[BAYES_00=-2, FOURLA=0.1, LDO_WHITELIST=-5, MURPHY_DRUGS_REL8=0.02, PGPSIGNATURE=-5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
X-Policyd-Weight using cached result; rate: -5
Organization The Organization of Unorganized Woozalists
X-Mailer Claws Mail 3.13.2 (GTK+ 2.24.30; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
MIME-Version 1.0
Content-Type multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; boundary="Sig_/saZczrDlYFmZM//kPn6T9bN"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
X-Mailing-List <debian-python@lists.debian.org> archive/latest/13836
List-ID <debian-python.lists.debian.org>
List-URL <https://lists.debian.org/debian-python/>
List-Archive https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20160510140155.2acef593.barry@wooz.org
Approved robomod@news.nic.it
Lines 61
Sender robomod@news.nic.it
X-Original-Date Tue, 10 May 2016 14:01:55 -0400
X-Original-Message-ID <20160510140155.2acef593.barry@wooz.org>
X-Original-References <1462901013.5276.5.camel@fladi.at>
Xref csiph.com linux.debian.maint.python:8507

Show key headers only | View raw


[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] - view raw

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

Back to linux.debian.maint.python | Previous | NextPrevious in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread


Thread

pypy pakages Michael Fladischer <michael@fladi.at> - 2016-05-10 19:50 +0200
  Re: pypy pakages Barry Warsaw <barry@debian.org> - 2016-05-10 20:10 +0200
  Re: pypy pakages Dmitry Shachnev <mitya57@debian.org> - 2016-05-10 20:20 +0200
  Re: pypy pakages Stefano Rivera <stefanor@debian.org> - 2016-05-10 23:30 +0200
    Re: pypy pakages Tristan Seligmann <mithrandi@mithrandi.net> - 2016-05-11 00:20 +0200
      Re: pypy pakages Barry Warsaw <barry@debian.org> - 2016-05-11 15:30 +0200
    Re: pypy pakages Ben Finney <ben+debian@benfinney.id.au> - 2016-05-12 22:10 +0200

csiph-web