From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 598F513888F for ; Fri, 2 Jan 2015 23:21:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id CFAC1E07D1; Fri, 2 Jan 2015 23:21:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0CED4E07D1 for ; Fri, 2 Jan 2015 23:21:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pomiot.lan (mgorny-1-pt.tunnel.tserv28.waw1.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:70:353::2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: mgorny) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 353AC340690; Fri, 2 Jan 2015 23:21:50 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2015 00:21:44 +0100 From: =?UTF-8?B?TWljaGHFgiBHw7Nybnk=?= To: Mike Gilbert Cc: gentoo-python Subject: Re: [gentoo-python] RFC: Redesign for 'best implementation' in python-r1 Message-ID: <20150103002144.4939ecf7@pomiot.lan> In-Reply-To: References: <20141227145043.63b3731e@pomiot.lan> Organization: Gentoo X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.11.1 (GTK+ 2.24.25; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Discussions centering around the Python ecosystem in Gentoo Linux X-BeenThere: gentoo-python@gentoo.org X-BeenThere: gentoo-python@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; boundary="Sig_/DxtvqpQ26RS6rL/mbktPHXR"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: ff968a3c-9ef4-4e19-bdc0-ddf7585e6047 X-Archives-Hash: b00f0e47e2d58b75db096c4b7ae0fa3a --Sig_/DxtvqpQ26RS6rL/mbktPHXR Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dnia 2014-12-31, o godz. 11:41:45 Mike Gilbert napisa=C5=82(a): > > > > As for the choice within the list the algo needs to stay as-is for now. > > However, in the future we could either: > > > > a. respect EPYTHON and fallback to the other algo, > > > > b. respect pre-defined order i.e. 3.4 > 2.7, > > > > c. respect the order in PYTHON_COMPAT -- however that could be a little > > surprising to devs. > > > > > > What are your thoughts? >=20 > Starting/ending with EPYTHON from the environment seems wrong, and > doesn't seem to add value anyway. >=20 > I would prefer to stick with a predefined order unless someone can > present a case where the ebuild author really needs to control it. Well, it isn't really about the ebuild author but about the user. EPYTHON idea is pretty much a reference to the python-any-r1 behavior. IOW, having both eclasses use the same preference handling. --=20 Best regards, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny --Sig_/DxtvqpQ26RS6rL/mbktPHXR Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQJ8BAEBCgBmBQJUpygIXxSAAAAAAC4AKGlzc3Vlci1mcHJAbm90YXRpb25zLm9w ZW5wZ3AuZmlmdGhob3JzZW1hbi5uZXQ2REJCMDdDQzRGMERBRDA2RUEwQUZFNDFC MDdBMUFFQUVGQjQ0NjRFAAoJELB6GurvtEZOJJoP/0MlVPij6Ob9sQM/SvguvVRx xJhPOOcq1gSWFEKSvU8UanxnwldHOvekNC0E0bbp4VhvMKTM6Hy3JOItd5axO2Za r8lyjJvJfZ0F1HulYBE1dL01PdxTDxdf6HVWf07tJ2umUiXWglE8JUQs6+M44MeZ YHyrh++bkYStFSPIHsVp3nWNqvqA/WP4SRAVxteTH9FZIiU+LL2Hvk+42KoS0A1O JI6gHhjYpkDUFLI5eNrFWVZOa1gqGLbUh6qpBODG1xmaHjUNvZgooDkixZJK0E11 JuijJDpb0T/5rUoa9y0Yuycm8soGAW/U79lD+G5FCpN/bq20qq9jF5YT66EcW+yz xqLzuS2dcai28cBB3A34+e1vW1ZOtkj8gcmsimNI1H8DE0jRtJaXEXcxX4z44/Yn TcrFlDPT444Qv2NOXuUluCW3xCKvn9yDT0fRpsSauPeO7PR/7p/qdXBQ18+D+kzm IVYZZMINXdjxl/mC3kiFbb8TU4TnxRc7AUEQ7BcCEYNiZNvJ9JycEeRh/Jb6kb8V Y20FPxvhRBMM/bMq8YIkX3EvqAOuQYOR13Xd0ZrPdcov1wpE1661fVXvXJp4x0/E nyCpvVShFoNUootpOu5BIB/34N5TN4ER+3wjdTaO5WCAH4TqcDVNj+tFym5RvdaH nxCxCBHbRWH94qvG71hx =wvaq -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/DxtvqpQ26RS6rL/mbktPHXR--