#42468 closed enhancement (fixed)
py-scipy @0.13.3: enable py34 subport, python34 @3.4.0rc1:
Reported by: | petrrr | Owned by: | macports-tickets@… |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | Normal | Milestone: | |
Component: | ports | Version: | |
Keywords: | Cc: | seanfarley (Sean Farley), michaelld (Michael Dickens), jyrkiwahlstedt | |
Port: | py-scipy, python34 |
Description
This port is quite relevant also as dependency. At least it is a dependency for a port I maintain. So it would be desirable to have Python 3.4 support enabled soon.
However, there might be an issue with this:
http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.python.scientific.devel/18467
Note: I am a bit confused with the date of this, which seems not to correspond with rc 1 release, so the issue might in reality refer to "beta" instead of "release candidate". Here the release schedule:
In case the above issue applies, I guess there are two options:
- wait for Python 3.4 rc 2 (upstream fix);
- apply the patch proposed above;
The maintainer of python34
might want to consider applying the cited patch before Python 3.4 rc2 is available, so I CC as well.
Change History (7)
comment:2 Changed 11 years ago by michaelld (Michael Dickens)
Does anyone have a diff on what MacPorts provides regarding py-scipy (still currently 0.13.3) support for python34 (now at rc2)? I don't have time right now to work out the details; hopefully someone else does have some time. If this were as simple as adding "34" support to the py-scipy list, that would be great ... but, I'm doubting this is the case.
comment:3 Changed 11 years ago by petrrr
I understand that the above documented possible issue should not apply any more. Anyway, if nobody is faster, I might try to see what happens if py34 is enabled.
comment:4 Changed 11 years ago by michaelld (Michael Dickens)
Go for it! Let this ticket know & if it works for you then I'll push the change.
comment:5 Changed 11 years ago by petrrr
I now was able to do some testing regarding py34 subport. The port builds fine.
But there seems to be some problem with opportunistic linking. When I first build I had atlas
installed, subsequent testing caused a segmentation fault. Building with atlas
deactivated, avoids this problem. I imagine, this problem could affect the other subports as well. I have not tested this yet.
Some of the tests actually fail, but I think this is a know issued as the testing framework seems to have some flaws.
So I would propose to enable 'py34' subport here and track the opportunistic linking issue in a separate ticket.
comment:6 follow-up: 7 Changed 11 years ago by michaelld (Michael Dickens)
Resolution: | → fixed |
---|---|
Status: | new → closed |
I enabled Python 3.4 support in r117983. It seems to work for the most part for me, e.g.,
python3.4 -c "import scipy; scipy.test()"
returns
Ran 2027 tests in 22.574s FAILED (KNOWNFAIL=2, SKIP=15, errors=13)
The same for Python 3.3 returns:
Ran 8775 tests in 113.905s OK (KNOWNFAIL=113, SKIP=210)
which is obviously better. The same for Python 2.7 bombs out after just a few 100 tests, which is worse than for 3.4!
So, yeah; if there are opportunistic linking issue then open a new ticket with those.
comment:7 Changed 11 years ago by petrrr
Replying to michaelld@…:
I enabled Python 3.4 support in r117983. It seems to work for the most part for me, e.g.,
python3.4 -c "import scipy; scipy.test()"returns
Ran 2027 tests in 22.574s FAILED (KNOWNFAIL=2, SKIP=15, errors=13)The same for Python 3.3 returns:
Ran 8775 tests in 113.905s OK (KNOWNFAIL=113, SKIP=210)which is obviously better. The same for Python 2.7 bombs out after just a few 100 tests, which is worse than for 3.4!
Python 3.3 vs 3.4 looks very similar to what I was observing. I do not recall any problems with 2.7, but I can re-run the test again. However, when testing 3.4 for the first time I got a segmentation fault on testing due to opportunistic linking. Maybe you want to check for this as well.
So, yeah; if there are opportunistic linking issue then open a new ticket with those.
Yes, this is what I was planning. I just have not found the time to do more exhaustive testing on this, e.g. testing also for py33 and py27.
Better close #42467. Here the description is complete.