On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 08:57:20PM +0100, Thomas Sachau wrote: > Am 24.03.2010 19:03, schrieb William Hubbs: > > On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 05:47:18PM +0000, Jeremy Olexa wrote: > >> > >> On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 10:32:37 -0700, Joshua Saddler <nightmo...@gentoo.org> > >> wrote: > >>>>> But everyone else in Gentoo does, so . . . > > > > Really? I've seen a few people object, but not everyone in gentoo. > > > >>>> > >>>> Some Gentoo developers/users, who aren't Python maintainers, said that > >>>> they didn't object to have Python 3 installed. > >>> > >>> They're in the minority, judging by the replies in this thread. > >> > >> I hate to get into the mix of this, but I suggest researching on "vocal > >> minority" and/or "silent majority" - the most vocal ones on this thread are > >> the minority of the population. I'm not attacking anyone, mind you. > >> > >> I haven't expressed anything on this thread but I'm ok with marking it > >> stable and having concerned users mask it. The stages might get kinda funky > >> with both python-2 and 3 on them, but..if they are not BROKEN, I don't > >> care. > > > > I tend to agree with this. I don't think it is right to force everyone > > to wait until most of the tree works with python3 before it goes stable. > > That is why python is slotted; it is possible to have both versions > > installed at the same time. If we have packages in the tree that are > > pulling in both versions of python but are not compatible with them, > > their dependencies need to be fixed. If users do not want python-3 on > > their systems, that is what /etc/portage/package.mask is for. > > > > If we are going to make everyone wait until python-3 works with most > > packages in the tree, let's un-slot all versionf of python and hard mask > > python-3. > > > > William > > > > Who said, that we are against a stable python-3 version? > > The main point (as already pointed out in my previous thread about python-3) > is, that it is not in > any way required or used. But there are still wrong dependencies (where > Arfrever just closes bugs as > invalid) and packages like the mentioned "setuptools", which will always pull > in python-3.
That is because setuptools works with both versions of python, and if a user wants both versions of python on their system they will need setuptools installed for both versions. You say there are "wrong dependencies". How are they wrong? I mean, do the packages with dev-lang/python in their deps not work with both versions of python? If they don't, they need to be fixed. If they do, they are correct. > Why should we pull in python-3 for ever user, force the usual user to install > a useless python-3 and > additional files in python-3 path for many python packages? The minimum would > be to tell them, that > this python version is currently useless and they have the option to mask it > locally. And i really > dont think, that the default stable user knows, that python-3 is not really > needed and can be > masked, usually the pulled in dependencies are required, so he will expect > the same for python-3. If we make it clear in the news item that python-3 cannot be used as the default python, so if users do not want it they should mask it, we have done our job imho. In other words, this is just a matter of informing users. William
pgpD4DbnmimhD.pgp
Description: PGP signature
