It's not that tricky, the check libraries call will actually grab the libs from svn if they don't exist, so if you move the update sources call after the check libraries call, you can reasonably assume the libs have been checked out and python should exist. (but checking for it wouldn't hurt)

didnt' test but P1074 will probably suffice

Am not really maintaining anything in that area, so not much to say here.

Besides the fact that the new make_update.py in not very pythonic (as in, think we usually try to avoid running any code at the module level (i.e. during module loading/evaluation), and use the if __name__ == "__main__": check at the end to detect that the file is actually 'executed' and call some kind of 'main' function then…). Not sure we really care about that in that specific case though?

In D5545#128706, @Sergey Sharybin (sergey) wrote:

Not really related on this specific patch, but shall we then put linux libraries to svn as well? So then we can have them tagged and versioned. And will be able to do corrective release even in the case when library update happens after release prior to the corrective one?
On a downside is then it would be seemed as a false indication that those are portable libraries (which isn't true due to difference in compilers ABI and such). But maybe iof we call them linux_centos7_gcc6 it will be clear enough? (which leads to a downside is that people would want to have more linuxes/compilers covered, but we wouldn't have resources to maintain those).

I'm fine with having these, it seems good to have them especially to version them along with releases.