Re: Proposal: Reorganizing Python for Python2 (and fixes for the previous proposal)
Moshe Zadka <moshez@zadka.site.co.il> writes:
> Only CPython uses .pycs. Stackless uses the same PYCs as the
> corresponding version of CPython, JPython uses .class files.
> Python.NET is MS vapour, so I have no idea what it uses.
This isn't really restricted to .pycs -- the point is that a package
cannot drop .pycs into a directory and expect all versions of Python
to use them. An automatic compilation process could even make .class
files for jpython from the same .py source...
> > Of course, add-ons with .so modules would necessarily be compatible
> > with only one interpreter
>
> Not neccessarily: the API version doesn't change as often as the
> Python version.
But for purposes of packaging infrastructure, we can't rely on that.
We have to assume that the API might change any time that upstream
wants it to, and provide for parallel installation of .so modules if
we are going to have parallel installation of Python versions. (This
is really more of a build-time issue, I guess -- probably could be
handled nicely by a Debian extension to distutils.)
--Rob
p.s. why the heck does everybody seem to think cc:ing mailing list
postings is a good idea? stop, please! I'm on the mailing list, I
don't need to see it again...
--
Rob Tillotson N9MTB <robt@debian.org>
Reply to: