Re: pypy pakages

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

Re: pypy pakages

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

Re: pypy pakages

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

Re: pypy pakages

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

Re: pypy pakages

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

Re: pypy pakages

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