Hi Karl,
Karl Berry writes:
> I'm hoping to put out the first pretest tomorrow and 1.18 not long
> after. So clearly this Python stuff needs to wait for another release.
Thanks for mentioning this again. That plan sounds fine. Python packages
seem to have their own packaging stuff that works we
What does your schedule look like for the next Automake release?
I'm hoping to put out the first pretest tomorrow and 1.18 not long
after. So clearly this Python stuff needs to wait for another release.
Thanks for the quick reply. -k
On Mon, Feb 24, 2025, at 11:48 AM, Karl Berry wrote:
> Returning to this issue of preferring python3, from last year:
>
> https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=71672
>
> Add these three macros to Autoconf proper: ..._PYTHON_...
>
> Have they been added?
They have not. Regrettably,
On Mon, Feb 24, 2025, at 11:03 PM, Jacob Bachmeyer wrote:
> On 2/24/25 10:48, Karl Berry wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>> To be clear, the above suggested factoring-out won't (intentionally)
>> affect the behavior of AM_PATH_PYTHON, right? It will still look for
>> "python" first, and still do all the stuff i
On 2/24/25 10:48, Karl Berry wrote:
[...]
To be clear, the above suggested factoring-out won't (intentionally)
affect the behavior of AM_PATH_PYTHON, right? It will still look for
"python" first, and still do all the stuff it does. I want Automake to
stay as backward-compatible as possible.
Th
Returning to this issue of preferring python3, from last year:
https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=71672
Add these three macros to Autoconf proper:
..._PYTHON_...
Have they been added?
I think that should disentangle things reasonably well, but we should
defini
zw> Add these three macros to Autoconf proper:
...
Automake's python.m4 should also define these if they are not
already defined. Then, we split AM_PATH_PYTHON ...
Thanks Zack. It all sounds good to me.
definitely do this early rather than late in an automake release
cycle
Zack Weinberg wrote:
> Automake's python.m4 should also define these if they are not already defined.
> Then, we split AM_PATH_PYTHON into the part that sets PYTHON, which is
> implemented
> in terms of the above macros (but still looks for both 2 and 3) and the part
> that
> does all the rest of
Here's what I think might be useful:
Add these three macros to Autoconf proper:
# AC_PYTHON_VERSION_RANGE_IFELSE([PROG], [MIN-VERSION], [MAX-VERSION =
next-major],
#[ACTION-IF-TRUE], [ACTION-IF-FALSE])
#
-
# Run
Or maybe AM_PYTHON3_PATH which requires Python3 so that the
interface of the original macro isn't changed.
My idea for having a separate options command was for the future: who
knows what incompatibilities python will create in the future. Other
options besides p3 vs p2 might be needed. In
Hi Karl,
Karl Berry wrote:
> Yes ... but I feel strongly that we should try very hard not to break
> existing configure setups.
Reasonable goal.
> It occurs to me that we could allow maintainers to specify p3-searching
> options in their configure.ac, like
>
> AM_PYTHON_OPTS(python3-check-first
I thought the intention was to prioritize python 3.X which
would cause problems using "python" first.
Yes ... but I feel strongly that we should try very hard not to break
existing configure setups.
It occurs to me that we could allow maintainers to specify p3-searching
options in their c
Karl Berry wrote:
> I can imagine preferring "python3" to "python" in the future, but this
> seems like too big of a change to make at the very end (I hope) of the
> pretest cycle. I think it would be better to make it well in advance of
> the next release and try to garner feedback on the inevitab
Collin, Zack -
> Shouldn't AM_PATH_PYTHON check for the python3 command before python?
Yes it should.
That seems like a huge change to make. I understand the reasoning, given
the world of Python, but the goal of "don't break existing projects"
argues against it.
Note that PEP 394 i
On Thu, Jun 20, 2024, at 5:50 AM, Collin Funk wrote:
> Shouldn't AM_PATH_PYTHON check for the python3 command before python?
Yes it should.
> The full recommendation of how these should be setup is in PEP 394
Note that PEP 394 is dangerously incorrect on one point: a system where
/usr/bin/python
Hi,
Shouldn't AM_PATH_PYTHON check for the python3 command before python?
The full recommendation of how these should be setup is in PEP 394
[1].
On modern systems I don't think it should matter. On Fedora 40:
$ command -v python
/usr/bin/python
$ command -v python3
/usr/bin/pyth
16 matches
Mail list logo
