Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] Eclass changes for cross-compiling Python modules

[James Le Cuirot <chewi@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2335 bytes --]

On Fri, 04 Jan 2019 17:03:42 +0100
Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Thu, 2019-01-03 at 21:39 +0000, James Le Cuirot wrote:
> > Here's a series of eclass changes I've been working on since August to
> > allow Python modules to be cross-compiled. We previously believed this
> > to be practically impossible without significant changes upstream and
> > in the wider Python ecosystem so getting here feels like quite an
> > achievement. While the approach is a little unconventional, it doesn't
> > feel overly hacky and the results are quite consistently good.
> > 
> > These changes should also benefit prefix and I did a full prefix
> > bootstrap for the first time this week just to make sure I didn't
> > break it.
> > 
> > A handful of other Python packages that don't quite follow the usual
> > mantra have needed fixing up. I haven't included those changes here
> > but you can view them on this GitHub pull request.
> > 
> > https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/pull/9822
> > 
> > Once this is in place, I can finish my long-awaited revamp of my
> > cross-boss project that will allow you to cross-compile @system from
> > scratch with very little effort.
> >   
> 
> I've reviewed a few commits but I think I had enough.  If you really
> want to push this forward, please start by merging fixes into your
> previous commits because it's really not useful to have commits like
> 'fix bugs in commit 3 you've already reviewed'.

Sure, that's what I usually do.

> Then, you should seriously think how to make things simple.  Because
> the eclass is very complex right now, and doubling the complexity for
> the sake of corner case of cross isn't going work for me.  The last
> thing we need is more hacks on top of hacks to work around previous
> hacks.

I knew this was going to be a tough sell and I put it up on GitHub
first to get your initial feedback and keep you in the loop. Of course
I want to keep it simple, not least so it has a greater chance of being
accepted, but you should know better than most that this was never
going to be easy. As I said, we initially thought it was impossible.
I'll respond to your points so far on the list but we can take this
back to GitHub to avoid spamming everyone else.

-- 
James Le Cuirot (chewi)
Gentoo Linux Developer

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 981 bytes --]