This repository has been archived by the owner on May 30, 2023. It is now read-only.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
[RFC] dev-lang/python-oem: use python from python-build-standalone project #1815
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
[RFC] dev-lang/python-oem: use python from python-build-standalone project #1815
Changes from all commits
bcb9e69
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
This file was deleted.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
These are the binary releases, or? I think it's ok to use binary releases if we have some criteria but at the moment we normally compile from source (also possible for this project).
So that's more a general question worth discussing: under which circumstances are we fine consuming third-party binaries, and if it's an option, should we plan to do more of it to lower the maintenance burden and build times? E.g, there are binary releases for the Rust compiler or Go, why not use them, too?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes these are binary releases. Normally I prefer the build from source approach, but it wouldn't be possible to do that from the ebuild here:
Though we could rebuild from source and host the binaries for ourselves, and then consume them.
I would be for switching to dev-lang/rust-bin, the build times for it are ridiculous, and the rust compiler (including self bootstrap) is a major part of our SDK build time. For go we wouldn't have much benefit from using a pre-built toolchain.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Also given that we can revisit the choice of where the python binaries come from when migrating to sysext, I'm fine consuming the published binaries in this case here.
About Rust, yeah, specially the LLVM compilation takes ages…
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Rust cross-compilation support is something we handle in dev-lang/rust and would need to be ported. I haven't looked deeper.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah, or use
rustup
to install the regular toolchain into the SDKThere was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This file was deleted.