On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 11:14 PM, Antoine Pitrou <solip...@pitrou.net>wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Feb 2013 11:00:24 +1000 > Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 9:50 AM, Antoine Pitrou <solip...@pitrou.net> > wrote: > > > On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 23:52:27 +0100 (CET) > > > matthias.klose <python-check...@python.org> wrote: > > >> http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/8ee6d96a1019 > > >> changeset: 81859:8ee6d96a1019 > > >> branch: 2.7 > > >> parent: 81855:df9f8feb7444 > > >> user: d...@python.org > > >> date: Thu Jan 31 23:52:03 2013 +0100 > > >> summary: > > >> - Issue #17086: Backport the patches from the 3.3 branch to > cross-build > > >> the package. > > > > > > You aren't supposed to add new features to bugfix branches. Did you > > > have a specific reason to do this? > > > > One of the reasons for the long maintenance period on 2.7 is to keep > > it building as the underlying platforms change. With the rise of ARM > > systems, being able to reliably cross-build Python 2.7 for ARM from an > > x86_64 system is fairly important. > > I would like to see a better argument for this. The rise of ARM systems > is the rise of ARM systems powerful enough to build Python without > cross-compiling (which is why we *now* have ARM buildbots). > The very small ARM systems which need cross-compiling have existed for > decades. > It is quite common for developers to build a single code base on a single workstation targeting a plethora of platforms all at once. Requiring native systems with self hosting tool-chains for builds is a non-starter as those often don't exist. Making Python 2.7's configure+makefiles easier to cross compile out of the box is a good thing. Side note: we really need a cross compiling build-bot host + target system or we'll inevitably break this. > > That said, as a procedural point for build related new features in > > 2.7, I agree they should be proposed, with an explicit rationale, on > > python-dev before proceeding with the commit. > > I think this huge changeset should be reverted. It's a complete failure > in terms of procedure and following the rules. "Just because it can be > useful" is not a good enough reason to violate our release model > without even asking. > That's up to the 2.7 release manager. Yes, this could have been done better by asking first. But IMNSHO I'd prefer to see it stay in. -gps > > Regards > > Antoine. > _______________________________________________ > 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/greg%40krypto.org >
_______________________________________________ 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
