Sync site.py and sysconfig.py with PyPy

[mattip]

BPO	43307
Nosy	@stefanor, @mattip
PRs	bpo-43307: sync sysconfig and site with PyPy to add an implementation key #24628

^{Note: these values reflect the state of the issue at the time it was migrated and might not reflect the current state.}

Show more details

GitHub fields:

assignee = None
closed_at = None
created_at = <Date 2021-02-23.17:01:37.729>
labels = ['type-feature', 'expert-installation', '3.10']
title = 'Sync site.py and sysconfig.py with PyPy'
updated_at = <Date 2021-04-06.18:33:51.948>
user = 'https://github.com/mattip'

bugs.python.org fields:

activity = <Date 2021-04-06.18:33:51.948>
actor = 'terry.reedy'
assignee = 'none'
closed = False
closed_date = None
closer = None
components = ['Installation']
creation = <Date 2021-02-23.17:01:37.729>
creator = 'mattip'
dependencies = []
files = []
hgrepos = []
issue_num = 43307
keywords = ['patch']
message_count = 2.0
messages = ['387583', '387765']
nosy_count = 2.0
nosy_names = ['stefanor', 'mattip']
pr_nums = ['24628']
priority = 'normal'
resolution = None
stage = 'patch review'
status = 'open'
superseder = None
type = 'enhancement'
url = 'https://bugs.python.org/issue43307'
versions = ['Python 3.10']

[mattip]

PyPy added some enhancements to sysconfig.py to deal with multiple implementations. site.py copies parts of sysconfig.py to save time when importing. It would be nice to backport these enhamncements, maybe other implementations could reuse them.

[terryjreedy]

You marked 3.7 here, which only gets security patches, but submitted a PR for master, which is appropriate for enhancements. ('backport' here on the tracker means apply to older version after patching master.)

[FFY00]

@mattip, can I close this, given the outcome of the PR?

I am working on a new sysconfig API (still researching, but you can find a rough initial draft of the proposal here), and would love to incorporate the changes and get feedback from PyPy there.

[mattip]

I am fine to close this. How do I mention that the new API should not hardcode python as the implementation name? There is also #99560

[FFY00]

Okay, thanks.

I'll make sure to incorporate that (not hardcoding the implementation name) into the proposal, and will ping you on the issue after I submit it. I am aware of #99560 and planning to incorporate that too 😊