Christian Heimes wrote:
Michael Foord wrote:
I really like this scheme. The important thing for IronPython is that we
can get it into Python 2.6 (along with other fixes to make distutils
compatible with IronPython - like not attempting to bytecode-compile
when sys.dont_write_bytecode is True).
I don't think my proposal will land into 2.6. The changes are too severe
for a bug fix release.
Right, certainly not adding umpteen new sys attributes. :-)
The problem is that the alternative implementations run well behind
Python-trunk, indeed it doesn't really make sense for them to put a lot
of effort into implementing a version that is still in development. The
result is that they discover incompatibilites after a version has gone
into 'bugfix only' mode.
Whilst the fix you have described (add information to sys that is used
by site.py and distutils) is ideal it can only go into 2.7. I would
*still* like to see a fix in 2.6 - even if it is simple logic in site.py
using sys.platform (if sys.platform == 'cli'; elif sys.platform ==
'java' etc). That way IronPython 2.6 is able to be compatible with
Python 2.6. This logic might need duplicating in distutils (I haven't
looked at how distutils works out where the user site-packages folder
is), but it is a 'maintenance only' fix.
All the best,
Michael
Christian
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/fuzzyman%40voidspace.org.uk
--
http://www.ironpythoninaction.com/
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
