On Fri, 4 Mar 2022 at 12:44, Konrad Weihmann <[email protected]> wrote: > For me that would be a candidate to be added to meta-python, or are > there any core recipes that currently break because of the new behavior?
This is restoring existing behaviour, so I believe it should be in core. There's going to be enough recipes using this that it is justified in core. I expect we'll have deleted this by the time the next LTS comes around too. > Furthermore the variables names are the same, so if people accidentally > (or due to complex injection trees/classes/distro settings/whatever have > new setuptools3 and this class here in the same recipe, things become > rather unpredictable - as of now there are the same but surely they will > start to diverge at one point. That's intentional: if you have a recipe which needs the legacy behaviour, just change the import from setuptool3 to setuptools3_legacy. > While we are at it pypi class needs a fallback too, because for me this > is the standard way of packaging python recipes and new class points to > the new setuptools implementation - so if we want to have this here, we > might need a fallback for pypi class as well My understanding is that almost anything on pypi is already a pure Python module and is mostly unaffected by the changes. Ross
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#162717): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/162717 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/89547022/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
