MacPorts Special Interest Group for Python

[Bryan Blackburn]

On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 12:53 AM, Akira Kitada wrote:
> Hi Python maintainers,
>
> I would like to propose that MacPorts should have an "interest group"
> for Python.
> MacPorts has been adding many Python ports to its collection,
> but they are rather individual works and lacks the plan for the long term.

I definitely like the idea of having more than one person to handle each of
the base python ports themselves (as well as other, similar ports like
perl, ruby, etc), since these can take some work to maintain and are a
critical part of the dependency chain for many other ports.

As far as a separate group for more big-picture stuff, I'm not sure we
really need that.  The -dev list here isn't exactly a really high traffic
list and python-specific discussion isn't going to be major, at least once a
few decisions can be made.

Hitting your points:

>
> The group will
> - Plan and mark specific version of Python as "default".

This affects a large number of ports above python itself, so shouldn't be
chosen without input from maintainers who have such ports (like mercurial,
bindings for subversion, and dozens of others).  Some applications most
likely won't be working with a newer version when it is first available (eg,
how many currently work with 2.6, let alone 3.0, right now?).

> - Provide Template Portfile for Python modules.

To some degree, the group code should take care of this, once we get a few
more bits moved into it.

> - Share Python related problems and solutions.
> - Write Python ports specific documentations.
> - has a lead for Python ports, who makes decisions.
> - etc, etc.

In my opinion, these all fall into my thinking that -dev would be better,
since bits of these points are going to affect those who aren't involved
with python* or py-* ports directly, but apps which use them.  Since they'll
have different viewpoints and different needs, it only makes sense to try
and bring the larger group of -dev into it.

>
> What do you think of this idea?

What the python stuff needs most right now is consistency (as you've noticed
before).  The most immediate is to decide on how best to handle module ports
which install the same-named files (bin/foo for py25-foo and py26-foo) and
associated files (like man pages).  This can then be put into the group code
so that Portfile authors can do something like

python.install_bin   foo

and the rest (renaming to foo-2.5 or foo-2.6 as necessary) can happen
automagically.

After that, making the base python ports more consistent is needed.

Anyone else have thoughts/observations/complaints?

Bryan


>
> Thanks,
>