Re: [gentoo-python] Testing dev-lang/python version bumps

[Dirkjan Ochtman <djc@gentoo.org>]

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.

On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 03:12, Mike Gilbert <floppym@gentoo.org> 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.

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. These are the  differences between my 2.7.3
patchset and your 2.7.3-0:

1. Added 08_all_regenerate_platform-specific_modules.patch, which
doesn't seem to be upstream yet.
2. Added back 22_all_turkish_locale.patch, which AFAIK isn't upstream,
nor associated with an open upstream bug?
3. Added 61_all_process_data.patch, for which the goal seems somewhat unclear.

You also removed the mention of the upstream bug from
04_all_libdir.patch, probably just by mistake?

As for 3.2.3, I'm also -1 on including 23_all_h2py_encoding.patch
after reading http://bugs.python.org/issue13032. 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.

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). 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.

Cheers,

Dirkjan