On 03/26/2010 02:02 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote: > El jue, 25-03-2010 a las 11:37 -0400, Richard Freeman escribió: >> On 03/24/2010 11:47 PM, Joshua Saddler wrote: >>> Even then, it'll likely get >>> installed first, as users will probably learn about p.masking it only >>> *after* they install it. >> >> I don't have strong feelings on whether having v3 installed by default >> is a big problem, but the last bit here probably should be addressed. >> >> The current news item only shows up for people with python 3.1 already >> installed. Would it make sense to have it show up for anybody with any >> version of python installed? Otherwise it is news after-the-fact. >> >> Rich >> > > Hello > > Maybe I have misunderstood anything (since I don't know much about > python stuff) but, what would occur if I forget to mask python-3 and > don't run python-updater. My plans would be to try to delay > python-updater running until I switch to use python3, because some > machines I maintain are quite old and takes some time to re-emerge all > python apps :-/ > > Thanks for the info
If you don't want to run python-updater, then you'd better mask python3 and uninstall it. Otherwise, you'll encounter build failures due to new packages trying to build for python3 when their dependencies haven't been rebuilt with python3 support. There's no harm done since it's easy to mask and uninstall python3 at this point, thereby avoiding the need to run python-updater. -- Thanks, Zac
