Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm] initial embedded python interpreter support (@rpm5.org derived) (#25)

2015-11-30 Thread Vít Ondruch
Dne 28.11.2015 v 14:37 Neal Gompa napsal(a): > On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 5:20 AM, Florian Festi >wrote: > > On 11/19/2015 04:09 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote: > > What is the usecase for this? Isn't this just feature bloat? > > I kinda agree that

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm] initial embedded python interpreter support (@rpm5.org derived) (#25)

2015-11-30 Thread Neal Gompa
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 4:22 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote: > Dne 28.11.2015 v 14:37 Neal Gompa napsal(a): > > On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 5:20 AM, Florian Festi wrote: >> >> On 11/19/2015 04:09 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote: >> > What is the usecase for this? Isn't this just

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm] initial embedded python interpreter support (@rpm5.org derived) (#25)

2015-11-28 Thread Neal Gompa
On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 5:20 AM, Florian Festi wrote: > On 11/19/2015 04:09 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote: > > What is the usecase for this? Isn't this just feature bloat? > > I kinda agree that this looks like feature bloat. This patch set needs a > very good justification to go in

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm] initial embedded python interpreter support (@rpm5.org derived) (#25)

2015-11-28 Thread proyvind
I'm not surprised by yum segfaulting, separate python interpreters outside of rpm running in the same address space isn't really a scenario taken into consideration so far.. As only usage within macros has really been supported and seen real world usage so far, getting scriptlet support in

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm] initial embedded python interpreter support (@rpm5.org derived) (#25)

2015-11-27 Thread ニール・ゴンパ
So, I gave it another go, and while the scriptlets seem to work now, interesting issues can come up. It causes segfaults in Yum and DNF, and I suspect anything that uses bindings to talk to RPM. --- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:

Re: [Rpm-maint] [rpm] initial embedded python interpreter support (@rpm5.org derived) (#25)

2015-11-26 Thread Florian Festi
On 11/19/2015 04:09 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote: > What is the usecase for this? Isn't this just feature bloat? I kinda agree that this looks like feature bloat. This patch set needs a very good justification to go in upstream. The overall trend is to rather keep minimal installs smaller as this is a