On 27.06.2011 19:00, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: > On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 17:53, Petteri Räty <betelge...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> I like the ruby approach for the reason that it doesn't require users to >> run update scripts like python-updater. > > Sure, but if that means the developers now have to bump every package > in the tree when a new version of Python comes out, I'm not sure > that's the best trade-off. >
And why can't this be handled by the eclass? If the ebuild is able to specify it supports >=3.0 meaning it's expected that future versions work then the eclass can make the new values available through IUSE when new python versions are out and ebuilds don't require any changes. Regards, Petteri
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
