On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 12:01 PM, Michał Górny <[email protected]> wrote:
> On wto, 2017-05-02 at 11:49 -0700, Zac Medico wrote:
> > Add forward compatibility up to python3.9. It's helpful to allow some
> > flexibility in ebuild PYTHON_COMPAT settings, for third-party
> > repositories that may be used with multiple snapshots of the gentoo
> > repository.
> > ---
> > eclass/python-utils-r1.eclass | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/eclass/python-utils-r1.eclass b/eclass/python-utils-r1.
> eclass
> > index 66a359e..997a994 100644
> > --- a/eclass/python-utils-r1.eclass
> > +++ b/eclass/python-utils-r1.eclass
> > @@ -70,7 +70,7 @@ _python_impl_supported() {
> > python2_7|python3_[456]|jython2_7)
> > return 0
> > ;;
> > - pypy1_[89]|pypy2_0|python2_[56]|python3_[123])
> > + pypy1_[89]|pypy2_0|python2_[56]|python3_[123789])
> > return 1
> > ;;
> > pypy|pypy3)
>
> Sounds like a very bad idea. How can you even think of adding
> an implementation if you don't know what the eclass API for it would be?
>
For my use case, we're adding python3_6 to PYTHON_COMPAT, and still using
those ebuilds with older snapshots of the gentoo repository from a few
months back (as well as newer snapshots). So, there's really no danger in
my case.
With my suggested change, the eclass doesn't make any API guarantees.
Where's the harm?
--
Thanks,
Zac
