Re: pypy pakages

[Ben Finney]

Stefano Rivera  writes:

> I think we're all kind of waiting for PyPy 3, so that we don't have to
> bring up an entire stack of packages (that few people are going to
> use).

That's one thing I'm waiting for.

Another thing is that many upstream packages don't bother declaring
support for PyPy (heck, too many packages don't bother declaring what
Python they support at all). I'm reluctant to assert that upstream's
code supports PyPy if upstream doesn't assert that.

> Otherwise, I'm not convinced that a large pypy stack in Debian is
> really useful right now. Practically, I expect most pypy users to be
> virtualenv-heavy.

That is something Debian can play an important role in counteracting, I
believe. (Provided we can actually support the packages, of course.)

-- 
 \   “The great thing about science is we can test our ideas.… But |
  `\   until we do, until we have data, it is just one more proposal.” |
_o__) —Darren Saunders, 2015-12-02 |
Ben Finney

Re: pypy pakages

[Barry Warsaw]

On May 10, 2016, at 09:56 PM, Tristan Seligmann wrote:

>I think it would be great if we could get performance-sensitive applications
>running on PyPy instead of CPython, but of course this requires the whole
>dependency graph to have pypy-* packages built.

That might be a good approach to building out the PyPy stack so we get more
experience with it.  Have you identified a leaf package or two that would
benefit from being run under PyPy in Debian?  That's the first step; then work
backwards in the dep chain.

Cheers,
-Barry

Re: pypy pakages

[Tristan Seligmann]

On Tue, 10 May 2016 at 23:29 Stefano Rivera  wrote:

> Hi Michael (2016.05.10_19:23:33_+0200)
> > is there a specific reason why there are so few pypy-* packages in the
> > archive? Is it just a lack of interest or are any practical reasons not
> > to have them?
>
> I think we're all kind of waiting for PyPy 3, so that we don't have to
> bring up an entire stack of packages (that few people are going to use).
>
> Personally, I've crated a couple, just to be sure that it all works
> correctly.
>

I've added pypy-* packages to all of my packages that I can, the rest are
missing dependencies. I think it would be great if we could get
performance-sensitive applications running on PyPy instead of CPython, but
of course this requires the whole dependency graph to have pypy-* packages
built.

Re: pypy pakages

[Stefano Rivera]

Hi Michael (2016.05.10_19:23:33_+0200)
> is there a specific reason why there are so few pypy-* packages in the
> archive? Is it just a lack of interest or are any practical reasons not
> to have them?

I think we're all kind of waiting for PyPy 3, so that we don't have to
bring up an entire stack of packages (that few people are going to use).

Personally, I've crated a couple, just to be sure that it all works
correctly.

It'd probably be useful to package numpypy, and other non-trivial
things.

Otherwise, I'm not convinced that a large pypy stack in Debian is really
useful right now. Practically, I expect most pypy users to be
virtualenv-heavy.

SR

-- 
Stefano Rivera
  http://tumbleweed.org.za/
  +1 415 683 3272

Re: pypy pakages

[Dmitry Shachnev]

Hi Michael,

On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 07:23:33PM +0200, Michael Fladischer wrote:
> is there a specific reason why there are so few pypy-* packages in the
> archive? Is it just a lack of interest or are any practical reasons not
> to have them?

I personally don't support pypy 2.x because:

1) It's Python 2;
2) It's code duplication (in the ideal Python 3 world all pure Python
files should be in /usr/lib/python3/dist-packages, and all extension files
should be in /usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/*.{interpreter-tag}.so).

(Of course if someone needs my packages for PyPy and files a bug about
that, I will probably add them.)

--
Dmitry Shachnev


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: pypy pakages

[Barry Warsaw]

On May 10, 2016, at 07:23 PM, Michael Fladischer wrote:

>is there a specific reason why there are so few pypy-* packages in the
>archive? Is it just a lack of interest or are any practical reasons not
>to have them?

I don't think there are too many practical reasons other than every package
that wants to add PyPy support has to minimally add a binary package section
and some build-deps.  For bonus, build-time and/or autopkgtests should also be
added and of course the whole extra stack needs testing.

I just added PyPy support to pyparsing, but mostly because it's a new
dependency of setuptools and Doko requested it.  I've also submitted a bug and
patch to autodep8 to recognize and generate PyPy test suites (#823883).

>I just tried to add pypy support to some of my packages and it was a
>pretty straight forward thing to do.

\o/

>If it's just a lack of interest, would anyone be willing to work with
>me to add pypy support to packages that are known to be compatible[0]?

JFDI, or do you want reviews of the packaging and/or need sponsorship?

Then the question is, what about Jython?  I guess we don't (yet) have to care
about IronPython.

Cheers,
-Barry


pgphxaAK4A4Z5.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature