On 03/24/2010 08:47 PM, Joshua Saddler wrote: > On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 16:12:55 -0500 > William Hubbs <willi...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >> On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 09:36:52PM +0100, Ben de Groot wrote: >>> We agree that this is the minimum that should be done. But our >>> Python lead stubbornly refuses to honor this reasonable request. >> >> On the other hand, I can see his point as well. The news item makes it >> very clear that python-3 cannot be the default python and that python-2 >> needs to be installed. > > Again, if it *cannot* be the default python, then it *should not* be > installed by default, which is what will happen if it's marked stable and > users aren't told to p.mask it. Even then, it'll likely get installed first, > as users will probably learn about p.masking it only *after* they install it.
Do we have a precedent on this, if for example, we look at the last time that a new slot of java (like 1.5) came out that wasn't supported by all packages and therefore couldn't be set as the default system jvm? -- Thanks, Zac
