El vie, 26-03-2010 a las 05:10 -0700, Zac Medico escribió: > > 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 a lot Zac for the explanation Arfrever, could this be noted in news item? I mean, since you are clearly in favor of python3 stabilization, you have prepared news item and *seems to me* that you prefer to not suggest or "recommend" its local masking in that news item, maybe you could find a way to write news informing users that they will need mask new python if they prefer to postpone python-updater run (since I think some users, like me, will prefer to not rebuild lots of packages until most of them will work with newer python), that way it wouldn't "sound" as much like a "generic recommendation" but more like a needed step for users not wanting to run python-updater yet (that would be like a "special case" common enough to take care of it). Would it be ok for you? Maybe that way most of us could reach a consensus on this :-) Thanks a lot
signature.asc
Description: Esta parte del mensaje está firmada digitalmente
