Am 14.05.2014 17:08, schrieb Brett Cannon:
On Wed May 14 2014 at 11:02:50 AM, R. David Murray email@example.com wrote:
On Wed, 14 May 2014 11:31:15 -0300, "Joao S. O. Bueno" < firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
+1 for an official policy that comes with a "permanent maintainer for this platform required" as part of the list of requisites.
On 14 May 2014 11:20, Brett Cannon email@example.com wrote:
Over the past week or so there have been 2 patches to add support for various UNIX OSs. Now I thought we had stopped trying to add new
OSs (e.g. I had never heard of MirOS until the patch for it came in),
can't find a PEP that spells out what it takes to get a platform
(http://legacy.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0011/ is about removing
not keeping them or adding them unless you are re-adding one which apparently just takes a volunteer).
Do we want an official policy written down in a PEP (yes, I can write
Should I keep closing these patches and saying that we are not adding support for new operating systems and be hand-wavy about it?
In addition to a maintainer (who I think doesn't have to be a committer, though that would be ideal), I think a maintained buildbot should be a requirement for formal support.
I would think someone how is/would be a core dev and a *stable* buildbot are requirements.
so, are aarch64-linux-gnu and powerpc64le-linux-gnu supported? I assume there are no buildbots and there won't be any for a long time. Otoh various distros do ship python on these architectures. Or are these just new architectures for an existing platform? If yes, then we should ask about architecture support too. The most prominent linux example are some RTLD constants which differ across some architectures.