From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1SNmrq-0004ZS-8y for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 27 Apr 2012 15:13:54 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id ACDC5E0824; Fri, 27 Apr 2012 15:13:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F11FE0769 for ; Fri, 27 Apr 2012 15:13:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.0.4] (d14-69-47-19.try.wideopenwest.com [69.14.19.47]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: floppym) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A02DE1B4033; Fri, 27 Apr 2012 15:13:50 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4F9AB7AB.3050807@gentoo.org> Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 11:13:47 -0400 From: Mike Gilbert User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120422 Thunderbird/11.0.1 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 To: djc@gentoo.org CC: gentoo-python@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-python] Testing dev-lang/python version bumps References: <4F935B10.1030206@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enigC1DFAF69AB346C84B8FB8AC8" X-Archives-Salt: 631ddfd5-b0b3-4156-802e-89f53a06b550 X-Archives-Hash: 63f7c589d5618debd2b6c74d299660b1 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enigC1DFAF69AB346C84B8FB8AC8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 04/27/2012 09:03 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: > Thanks for doing this! Sorry it took so long to review them... we > should try to think of some easier review mechanism than putting up a > tarball you have to unpack. >=20 > On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 03:12, Mike Gilbert wrote:= >> If we can get some people testing these that would be great. I would >> like to add them to the tree sometime in the next week. >=20 > I wonder, do you have a rationale for including each patch? IMO, > Arfrever has a tendency to diverge a bit further from upstream than I > like, and I note that you've taken in some patches and don't seem to > have gone in upstream.=20 To be honest, I did not look into each patch in great detail. I really just tested the resulting builds to make sure they did not break anything obvious. That said, let's dive in! > These are the differences between my 2.7.3 > patchset and your 2.7.3-0: >=20 > 1. Added 08_all_regenerate_platform-specific_modules.patch, which > doesn't seem to be upstream yet. Indeed it does not. Based on the feedback in the upstream bug, let's drop it. > 2. Added back 22_all_turkish_locale.patch, which AFAIK isn't upstream, > nor associated with an open upstream bug? I can't find a bug for this either. > 3. Added 61_all_process_data.patch, for which the goal seems somewhat u= nclear. >=20 This is some logic for python-wrapper that was in the 2.7.2 patchset as well. If you want to drop it, I'm sure that will require some re-engineering of python-wrapper. > You also removed the mention of the upstream bug from > 04_all_libdir.patch, probably just by mistake? >=20 I don't see any mention of a bug in the 2.7.2, 2.7.3 or 2.7.3-0 version of the patch, so I'm not sure what you are referring to here. > As for 3.2.3, I'm also -1 on including 23_all_h2py_encoding.patch > after reading http://bugs.python.org/issue13032. Agreed. > Including > 26_all_gdbm-1.9.patch in 3.1.5 is probably a good idea. For 3.1.5's > 09_all_sys.platform_linux2.patch, I'd prefer if we just reuse > ${FILESDIR}/linux2.patch, unless that doesn't apply for some reason. I don't really see a difference either way. I guess it is more visible in the ebuild. > Now, we can certainly discuss adding these patches on this list, but I > think we should try to maintain some balance on the upside of having > extra fixes in our ebuilds and the amount of maintenance we're willing > to do on carrying those patches forward (e.g. the distutils patch is a > pretty big pain, and it seems like more of a feature than a bug). Well, that does seem to be Arfrever's baby, so as long as he keeps rebase it, we should be ok. > I don't think we should throw everything out on revbumps or bugfix > releases, but for new releases such as 3.3 I would personally like to > do only the bare minimum of patching. >=20 That makes sense. I will keep it in mind. Would you like me to cut a new set of tarballs without 08, 22, and 23? --------------enigC1DFAF69AB346C84B8FB8AC8 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) iF4EAREIAAYFAk+at6wACgkQC77qH+pIQ6TU8gEAtA63S5HV8pq6rBX+vL9U3ojn GTDJBocp3fMgmBaLjLoA/R/g23UkT2PczFHyP22+FUVb82p2Ysvs1fCamSQL/plu =OIps -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enigC1DFAF69AB346C84B8FB8AC8--