Re: [gentoo-python] Replacing python-wrapper with python-exec

["Michał Górny" <mgorny@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1721 bytes --]

On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 13:07:17 -0400
Mike Gilbert <floppym@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 5:17 AM, Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > 3) add an '#if' clause and build the Python-relevant code conditionally.
> >
> > In other words, let python-exec install both regular 'python-exec'
> > and the 'python' binary built from the same code with '#if' switched.
> >
> > Pros:
> >
> > - still simple, and clean.
> >
> > Cons:
> >
> > - two executables installed.
> >
> >
> > What are your thoughts?
> >
> 
> If others agree that replacing python-wrapper is a good idea to begin
> with, this option would be my choice.

Well, I don't see much of a point to have two wrappers which serve
almost the same purpose with the main difference being that one does it
the simple almost-dumb way, and the other implementing a piece of
package manager inside.

> FYI, bypassing the setenv(GENTOO_PYTHON_PROCESS_NAME, ...) that is set
> in python-wrapper.c could cause issues with python-based daemons
> called from init scripts. If a pidfile is not used, openrc might not
> be able to find the right process. However, a pidfile seems to be a
> better solution for that anyway.
> 
> I'm sure djc would love to drop that patch from our dev-lang/python patchset.

I'd love to get rid of all that GENTOO_* stuff as well. If they serve
a real purpose, that means we're doing something just horribly wrong.

In any case, do I understand correctly that python-exec does break all
those packages anyway? We may simply decide to wait till it gets more
wide-spread (and thus packages get fixed to work with it) before
replacing python-wrapper.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 316 bytes --]