On Wed, 3 Sep 2014 20:50:53 +0100
Stuart Henderson <st...@openbsd.org> wrote:
> On 2014/09/03 21:43, frantisek holop wrote:
> > Stuart Henderson, 03 Sep 2014 20:34:
> > > > so basically:
> > > >
> > > > 1. one single py2 version
> > > > 2. py3 flavor, installed with bin/pyflakes${MODPY_VERSION}
> > > > 3. py3 flavor, conflict marker
> > > >
> > > > i am inclined to go with (1) until py2 is widespread.
> > > > i see (2) as waste of space. (3) is a bit
> > > > overengineered :)
> > > >
> > > > which approach would be preferred?
> > >
> > > I think your second option makes more sense.
> >
> > it surely makes sense, i am not sure more :)
> >
> > exactly the same set of files would be installed
> > into 2 different directories with 2 identical
> > bin/ scripts under different names: seems quite
> > redundant.. ok, in this case it is a small
> > package, but it could be 100 megs as well,
> > would it be still desirable?
>
> hmmm.
>
> $ make show=PKGNAMES
> pyflakes-0.6.1
>
> I've changed my mind; one single version for whichever is the current
> default python version makes more sense, because it avoids any hassle
> with package naming :-) (the multi-python-version infrastructure is
> setup for libraries named py-foo / py3-foo, which won't generalise to
> this case).
I agree with that.
Remi.
