On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 04:53, Michael Foord <fuzzy...@voidspace.org.uk>wrote:
> 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. > But it's still a change in semantics. Tossing this into 2.6 would mean that anyone who has worked around the current behaviour is going to have a busted install. -Brett
_______________________________________________ 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
