On 7/8/19 10:34 AM, Tomas Chvatal wrote:
Thomas Bechtold píše v Pá 05. 07. 2019 v 09:04 +0200:
On 7/4/19 4:29 PM, Tomas Chvatal wrote:
Also we planned to allow people using the pypy with singlespec which should make some science people really happy.
Do they need all 1000+ packages as pypy versions? How likely is it that they all work with pypy? I would be curious to see an experiement on this.
Quite big load of them really work (some need minor tweaks in build commands), we just didn't have time to enable it. When singlespec was created it was with this in mind actually, because we knew that the python2 will hopefully die quickly.
How can things work for non-python3 when we have plenty of:
in the %files sections? Or does "working" mean "build succeeds" ?
For most of the stuff you don't need the binaries, you want the modules to work.
I have a completely different opinion. If I don't have the executables, why do I need the modules? I *want* the executables available for the pyversion I use (eg. python3, python2 or pypy).
And alsoy you can always just do something along the lines of 'python -m whatever' and get same behaviour like with the binary that is not shipped. The scripts are mostly just wrappers that do it conveniently for you.
Sounds really user-friendly on a py2/pypy stack...