On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 5:52 PM, Gregory Szorc <gregory.szorc at gmail.com> wrote:> As much as I like killing support for Python 2.6 and below, RHEL is > usually the blocker. They still have 2.4 under support. Only the RHEL that > was released a few weeks ago finally has 2.7. >Given the amount of complexity required to build LLVM & Clang (having the right compiler & libstdc++ installed), compared to the 3 minutes it typically takes to install any Python version on any Linux box, these limitations always strike me as silly. But I gave up on this fight some time ago. Eli> > On Jun 25, 2014, at 17:11, Alexander Kornienko <alexfh at google.com> wrote: > > http://llvm.org/docs/GettingStarted.html currently mentions Python 2.5 as > a minimum required version. I'd like to use argparse > <https://docs.python.org/dev/library/argparse.html> in a script and be > able to test this script. This requires Python 2.7. This version has been > around since 2010, and afaiu, is available on all modern platforms. Is > there any reason not to change minimum required version of Python to 2.7? > > -- > Regards, > Alexander Kornienko > > _______________________________________________ > > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev > > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev > >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20140626/131caf66/attachment.html>
On 6/26/14, 8:22 AM, Eli Bendersky wrote:> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 5:52 PM, Gregory Szorc <gregory.szorc at gmail.com > <mailto:gregory.szorc at gmail.com>> wrote: > > As much as I like killing support for Python 2.6 and below, RHEL is > usually the blocker. They still have 2.4 under support. Only the > RHEL that was released a few weeks ago finally has 2.7. > > > Given the amount of complexity required to build LLVM & Clang (having > the right compiler & libstdc++ installed), compared to the 3 minutes it > typically takes to install any Python version on any Linux box, these > limitations always strike me as silly. But I gave up on this fight some > time ago.I got slashdotted arguing the same [1][2] :) I really wish the Python Project officially distributed a (statically linked) CPython distribution suitable for userland install via merely unarchiving. That would go a long way towards silencing the valid "I don't have permissions" and "I can't compile it" complaints. Maybe I'll propose that on python-dev right now... [1] http://developers.slashdot.org/story/14/01/09/1940232/why-do-projects-continue-to-support-old-python-releases [2] http://gregoryszorc.com/blog/2014/01/08/why-do-projects-support-old-python-releases/
On 6/26/14, 11:03 AM, Gregory Szorc wrote:> On 6/26/14, 8:22 AM, Eli Bendersky wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 5:52 PM, Gregory Szorc <gregory.szorc at gmail.com >> <mailto:gregory.szorc at gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> As much as I like killing support for Python 2.6 and below, RHEL is >> usually the blocker. They still have 2.4 under support. Only the >> RHEL that was released a few weeks ago finally has 2.7. >> >> >> Given the amount of complexity required to build LLVM & Clang (having >> the right compiler & libstdc++ installed), compared to the 3 minutes it >> typically takes to install any Python version on any Linux box, these >> limitations always strike me as silly. But I gave up on this fight some >> time ago. > > I got slashdotted arguing the same [1][2] :) I really wish the Python > Project officially distributed a (statically linked) CPython > distribution suitable for userland install via merely unarchiving. > That would go a long way towards silencing the valid "I don't have > permissions" and "I can't compile it" complaints. Maybe I'll propose > that on python-dev right now...I believe conda is solving all that nicely (and it works fine on redhat from what they say) http://conda.pydata.org/ Mehdi
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 11:03 AM, Gregory Szorc <gregory.szorc at gmail.com> wrote:> On 6/26/14, 8:22 AM, Eli Bendersky wrote: > >> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 5:52 PM, Gregory Szorc <gregory.szorc at gmail.com >> <mailto:gregory.szorc at gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> As much as I like killing support for Python 2.6 and below, RHEL is >> usually the blocker. They still have 2.4 under support. Only the >> RHEL that was released a few weeks ago finally has 2.7. >> >> >> Given the amount of complexity required to build LLVM & Clang (having >> the right compiler & libstdc++ installed), compared to the 3 minutes it >> typically takes to install any Python version on any Linux box, these >> limitations always strike me as silly. But I gave up on this fight some >> time ago. >> > > I got slashdotted arguing the same [1][2] :) I really wish the Python > Project officially distributed a (statically linked) CPython distribution > suitable for userland install via merely unarchiving. That would go a long > way towards silencing the valid "I don't have permissions" and "I can't > compile it" complaints. >I suppose this could help in the general case, but it's not really a problem relevant to LLVM developers, is it? We're talking about people who manage to build LLVM from source. This is significantly more complex than building Python. Also, building Python without installing it is also trivial - you just run the executable from wherever it was built and it knows to find its libraries. Eli -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20140626/a868ac2d/attachment.html>
On 6/26/2014 11:03 AM, Gregory Szorc wrote:> On 6/26/14, 8:22 AM, Eli Bendersky wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 5:52 PM, Gregory Szorc <gregory.szorc at gmail.com >> <mailto:gregory.szorc at gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> As much as I like killing support for Python 2.6 and below, RHEL is >> usually the blocker. They still have 2.4 under support. Only the >> RHEL that was released a few weeks ago finally has 2.7. >> >> >> Given the amount of complexity required to build LLVM & Clang (having >> the right compiler & libstdc++ installed), compared to the 3 minutes it >> typically takes to install any Python version on any Linux box, these >> limitations always strike me as silly. But I gave up on this fight some >> time ago. > > I got slashdotted arguing the same [1][2] :) I really wish the Python > Project officially distributed a (statically linked) CPython > distribution suitable for userland install via merely unarchiving. That > would go a long way towards silencing the valid "I don't have > permissions" and "I can't compile it" complaints. Maybe I'll propose > that on python-dev right now... > > [1] > http://developers.slashdot.org/story/14/01/09/1940232/why-do-projects-continue-to-support-old-python-releases > > [2] > http://gregoryszorc.com/blog/2014/01/08/why-do-projects-support-old-python-releases/FWIW, I made true on my threat to raise this issue on python-dev: https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2014-June/135211.html tl;dr; Python core project seem to have a no interest in solving the problem; Miniconda seems to be the recommended solution.