Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 30 Jan 2017 01:50:36 +0100
From:      Roland Smith <rsmith@xs4all.nl>
To:        "John W. O'Brien" <john@saltant.com>
Cc:        FreeBSD Python List <freebsd-python@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: Proposal: default to concurrent
Message-ID:  <20170130005036.GA72122@slackbox.erewhon.home>
In-Reply-To: <b331f7bb-f258-e157-45bb-20cec74b54f0@saltant.com>
References:  <b331f7bb-f258-e157-45bb-20cec74b54f0@saltant.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

--r5Pyd7+fXNt84Ff3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 02:08:00PM -0500, John W. O'Brien wrote:
> Hello FreeBSD Python,
>=20
> One of the most common problems I encounter with python3
> interoperability is when the concurrent option is needed and can be
> trivially enabled. There is a growing list of bugs where this, on a
> individual port basis, has been fixed ([0], [1]), is in progress ([2],
> [3]), or is in my queue and perhaps others' to submit ([4]). On the
> other hand, there are lots of ports for which concurrent is a no-op, and
> lots more that don't support python3 at all meaning that concurrent has
> little to no chance to cause harm.
>=20
> What I propose is to enable the concurrent behavior by default and to
> provide a feature to disable it when necessary.

This would be very welcome. Personally I only use python 3. Python 2 is just
installed for the ports that require it.

There also seems to be a trend of separate py3-* ports. This is sometimes a
much better solution than trying to make a single port support python 2 and=
 3.
(I've been looking for a way to do this with matplotlib, but haven't
succeeded.)
But looking forward, it might be a better idea to make py2-* ports for lega=
cy
stuff that doesn't support python 3. But that will probalby have to wait un=
til
the ports tree is ready to move to default to python 3.

> I welcome supportive and dissenting comments as well as cautionary
> remarks about the likely pitfalls of pursuing this.
>=20
> <snark>
> While it would be tempting to call the new feature something
> unflattering like "i_hate_python3" or "archaic_upstream" or
> "regressive", the most natural name is probably just "noconcurrent".
> </snark>

:-)

Roland
--=20
R.F.Smith                                   http://rsmith.home.xs4all.nl/
[plain text _non-HTML_ PGP/GnuPG encrypted/signed email much appreciated]
pgp: 5753 3324 1661 B0FE 8D93  FCED 40F6 D5DC A38A 33E0 (keyID: A38A33E0)

--r5Pyd7+fXNt84Ff3
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=tbg3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--r5Pyd7+fXNt84Ff3--



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20170130005036.GA72122>