This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Ping^2 Re: Use gen-libm-test.py to generate ulps table for manual
- From: Carlos O'Donell <carlos at redhat dot com>
- To: Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, "Dmitry V. Levin" <ldv at altlinux dot org>
- Cc: Andreas Schwab <schwab at suse dot de>, Zack Weinberg <zackw at panix dot com>, GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>, eggert at cs dot ucla dot edu
- Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2018 11:21:35 -0400
- Subject: Re: Ping^2 Re: Use gen-libm-test.py to generate ulps table for manual
- References: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1808092025590.28500@digraph.polyomino.org.uk> <alpine.DEB.2.21.1808211719240.1581@digraph.polyomino.org.uk> <mvmbm9dgzd6.fsf@suse.de> <CAKCAbMgo=+vv_cX5edqEHAf-Uo41zzaJZJpPZFwb9MuGcNbZrw@mail.gmail.com> <mvm36upgy4m.fsf@suse.de> <alpine.DEB.2.21.1809041418540.13030@digraph.polyomino.org.uk> <alpine.DEB.2.21.1809101240120.27941@digraph.polyomino.org.uk> <20180910181224.GC8807@altlinux.org> <alpine.DEB.2.21.1809171200160.13789@digraph.polyomino.org.uk> <alpine.DEB.2.21.1809251654040.14070@digraph.polyomino.org.uk> <alpine.DEB.2.21.1810011506180.31082@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>
On 10/1/18 11:06 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2018, Joseph Myers wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 17 Sep 2018, Joseph Myers wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 10 Sep 2018, Dmitry V. Levin wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 12:41:45PM +0000, Joseph Myers wrote:
>>>>> Dmitry, do you wish to make any comments on the use of Python in building
>>>>> glibc?
>>>>
>>>> My concern with making python a requirement to build glibc is that it will
>>>> pull in more packages not required to build glibc. If there is a "minimal"
>>>> subset of python that does not bring indirect dependencies to glibc build,
>>>> and at the same time is sufficient to build glibc, then adding this subset
>>>> of python as a requirement to build glibc shouldn't be a problem.
>>>>
>>>> I don't know yet whether SUSE or Debian take on the minimal subset pulls
>>>> in extra dependencies, I'll check this when time permits.
>>>
>>> Any conclusions there?
>>>
>>> I'm not sure it really matters for these purposes what a particular
>>> distribution's package pulls in, if they are happy with what works for
>>> them for the distribution build or bootstrap. The question for us would
>>> be more about what constraints this imposes on distributions in general
>>> (e.g. if it means libffi will be needed for a native build of glibc,
>>> depending on how far the indirect dependencies on ctypes in the Python
>>> standard library go), and whether we are OK with those constraints. The
>>> dependencies of the minimal distribution packages are simply useful
>>> information for us to help in determining those constraints.
>>
>> Ping. Any conclusion on this question about indirect dependencies
>> introduced by use of Python?
>
> Another ping on this question....
Could you help me to gather consensus?
If you could write up the following:
* Exact version of python to use.
* Exact set of imports we need.
I'll take that and try to get an acknowledgment from each of the
distributions. I'll email all the maintainers and follow up with
them (all on libc-alpha) in a new thread starting with the information
you will put together for me.
I'll also include some of the resolution about the concerns regarding
building python on an old distribution.
--
Cheers,
Carlos.