I ask a question and get completely firehosed. Relax, mate, it was just a technical question.
It's alright-- I know it was lengthy but I didn't expect you to read it all. It's strictly on a volunteer basis. I apologise for anything that was stressful or felt unpleasant, it was my feeling about the situation, not your post.
What I meant was that since PyPy is written in rpython does it matter what flavour of Python is used to build PyPy (either 2 or 3)?
Apparently. This isn't sarcasm, far from it-- I made exactly the same assumption myself. It's understandable that the devs want to compile PyPy from source. Sadly for BSD this is a catch 22 where to build rpython from source you need to build Python 2 from source. The PyPy devs don't have that problem (they already have rpython.) But understandably, BSD ports devs don't simply trust an rpython binary. If they do that, they might as well mirror PyPy binaries (if they existed for BSD) instead of compiling. Of course they wouldn't.
It makes sense, though the implications and result are that PyPy isn't deprecated (but building it is.)
PyPy itself can of course keep compatibility with Python 2 & 3.
Yeah, I wish I'd gotten that from what you were saying. Not your fault.
My next suggestion (I wring my clothes dry while writing this) would've paralled @pin's: build Python2 itself from source on 6.8. Python is not, I think, like Go where they use their own runtime and direct syscalls, so any changes to the source would not be extreme.
If I can figure out how to do that (right Now I'm happy to send money to NetBSD isntead-- not in hopes they'll do more, just for supporting what they already do now) that will work. But I have always leaned towards binary distributions, albeit ones with source available.
In fact, I can try to meet you half-way on this. The last free space on my disk is now being used by FreeBSD-12.2-RC3 (for another user here). When that is gone, I can install OpenBSD and try to build Python2 from scratch (it's been a while since I've done this and that was on Linux ages ago). Then you can use my instructions and build PyPy itself.
That's exactly what would make this so much easier for me, though it's far above and beyond my expectations here. It would be incredible to have instructions for that.
Incidently, I am focused on i386 (or 686, whatever comes before amd64.) Of course, if you compile amd64 I assume the instructions will be similar, but if you're just doing this for me I'd recommend compiling for i386 (you can do this on a 64-bit x86 machine.) But I'm either way I'm grateful.
(Of course, if you can use pkgsrc on OpenBSD then use that in preference.)
I haven't yet. So far I've only used pkg_add and pkg_info. The instructions you're talking about writing may help more; I believe pkgsrc only works for "recipes" (whatever they're called locally) that are already available, so if Python 2 is "dropped" it may come down to another mirror hunt. I don't claim to know how pkgsrc works, these are guesses.
Thanks very much. And please don't take anything I said personally. I wrote some things that could easily be interpreted as such, but despite challenging something you said, I took no offense to your post. All critique is aimed at PF (for their words, less for dropping support.) You've been ridiculously patient and it truly is appreciated. I got that you were trying to help, so let me clarify that here.
