"Maciej (Matchek) Bliziński" <[email protected]> writes: > 2013/8/1 Peter FELECAN <[email protected]>: >> They have python3 as a prefix when for 2.x they have a naked python >> prefix. >> >>>> It seems for python 3, they tried to define a stable ABI / API subset: >>>> http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0384/ >>> >>> My current working assumption is that we will have one module location >>> for all Python 3 minor versions. It's just the question of figuring >>> out a way the module build scripts to put files where we want them. >> >> We want them in /opt/csw/lib/python3.3 and from the upstream build >> system is what they do anyway. > > That's what's up for debate. When Python 3.4 comes along, it will be > backward compatible with Python 3.3. But if we keep modules in > /opt/csw/lib/python3.3, Python 3.4 will not see them, unless we do > something. We would either need to patch Python 3.4 to look into the > 3.3 library directory (Is that good? I think not, it seems ugly. Prove > me wrong if you wish!), or we will have to rebuild all Python 3 > modules to support 3.3 and 3.4. Why not have a shared Python 3 space > instead?
I cannot prove you wrong on an aesthetic consideration... I'm not opposed to a shared space as per Debian, we already discussed it but stalled on pre-compiled components, i.e. .pyc and .pyo But, as yourself showed, the shared space is for compiled stuff. -- Peter _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
