Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis posted on Tue, 23 Mar 2010 16:37:34 +0100 as excerpted:
> 2010-03-22 22:12:54 Jacob Godserv napisał(a): >> On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 10:11, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis >> <arfre...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> > 2010-03-20 01:51:44 Duncan napisał(a): >> >> So let's just recognize that it's not a perfect situation, create a >> >> news item saying that python-3 will soon (give a date) be unmasked, >> >> and suggest that users not needing it may wish to package.mask it >> >> themselves, with a link to documentation with specific instructions >> >> and a bit more detail on why they might wish to mask it and under >> >> what circumstances they might not. >> >> >> >> I'd suggest an unmasking date 30 days after the release of the news >> >> item. >> > >> > Python 3 is not masked. The discussion is about stabilization. >> >> Duncan's comments still apply, though, right? What's against writing a >> news item about stabilizing Python? > > There is already a thread about news item: > http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/ msg_814e67764c17f88bde94f22e9a392e4f.xml (link wrapped) But that doesn't mention that users may wish to package.mask it, to avoid having it on their systems at all. That's what /I/ was suggesting in /this/ thread, that a news item (presumably that one) should mention the package.mask option. That really does seem to be about the best compromise, given the situation as described so well in this thread. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
