[gentoo-dev] Unification of variables used within SCM eclasses
As suggested by ssuominen on bug #311101, I am posting the issue
to the mailing list.
Currently, various SCM eclasses differ very much in the subset
of features and control variables implemented. The idea is to establish
a single subset of such variables and rules for all SCM eclasses
to follow, and maybe even develop a common scm.eclass which would be
sourced by other SCM eclasses.
Variables suggested by me:
a) Common variables - the variables which would have to be used by
various SCM eclasses as default/fallback values.
1. ESCM_DISTDIR (defaulting to PORTAGE_ACTUAL_DISTDIR/PORTDIR)
- an alternate parent dir to all SCM stores. It would be useful
if user would like to use an small file-inefficient filesystem
for main DISTDIR or rsync it with other machine (where SCM
files are not as important as the tarballs are).
2. ESCM_OFFLINE (most eclasses use it already)
- a common switch to easily switch off all network interaction.
3. ESCM_LIVE_FAIL_IF_REPO_NOT_UPDATED (similar to the one in git.eclass)
- a common switch to force unpack() phase to fail if no updates
were found during the pull/update.
b) Common eclass-specific variables - these ones should allow user to
override above variables for single SCM.
1. E*_STORE_DIR (defaulting to ${ESCM_DISTDIR}/*-src)
- already used by few eclasses, allowing user to change
the location where SCM-specific clones are stored.
2. E*_OFFLINE (defaulting to ${ESCM_OFFLINE})
- allowing user to override global 'offline switch'. Thus, it
should also support setting 'false' value to enable network
interaction for single SCM.
3. E*_LIVE_FAIL_...
- another override for the global one.
4. E*_REPO_URI
- the URI to the main repository. It might be extended to support
multiple URIs.
5. E*_REVISION
- explicit expected-revision/tag specification, preferably along
with implicit one (e.g. in ESVN_REPO_URI) deprecation.
This would allow applications to easily distinguish
between 'real' live ebuilds and snapshot ones fetching directly
from the repo.
c) Common export variables - these ones should be exported by SCM eclass
and stored in environment.bz2 after successful emerge.
1. E*_VERSION (or _REVISION, or ...)
- the version/revision to which the package was updated. This would
be useful to determine whether the current repo is newer
than one used when merging package.
2. E*_WC_PATH
- the absolute path to the last-used clone dir (i.e.
${E*_STORE_DIR}/sth) and thus the most probable location
to perform further updates in.
d) Other:
1. ESCM_CUSTOM_FETCH
- this one is not directly related to eclasses but for use of ebuild
authors. Setting this in an ebuild should notice applications
that the ebuild does use custom fetching procedures
(i.e. fetches from multiple repositories in a manner
unsupported directly by the eclass) and thus external
applications should not try to update the repository themselves.
--
Best regards,
Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item
2010-03-23 20:28:38 Ben de Groot napisał(a): > On 23 March 2010 20:13, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis > wrote: > > I'm attaching updated news item, which will be committed soon. > > As mentioned in the other thread, this news item should mention > that users who do not need python-3 should mask it locally to > prevent it from being pulled into the dependency graph. Python maintainers do not recommend to mask Python 3. -- Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item
On 24 March 2010 17:43, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote: > 2010-03-23 20:28:38 Ben de Groot napisał(a): >> On 23 March 2010 20:13, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis >> wrote: >> > I'm attaching updated news item, which will be committed soon. >> >> As mentioned in the other thread, this news item should mention >> that users who do not need python-3 should mask it locally to >> prevent it from being pulled into the dependency graph. > > Python maintainers do not recommend to mask Python 3. Are you saying that you are just going to brush aside all concerns that have been voiced about this issue? You will upset a lot of people if you do that. -- Ben de Groot Gentoo Linux Qt project lead developer
Re: [gentoo-dev] Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 17:43:56 +0100 Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote: > 2010-03-23 20:28:38 Ben de Groot napisał(a): > > As mentioned in the other thread, this news item should mention > > that users who do not need python-3 should mask it locally to > > prevent it from being pulled into the dependency graph. > > Python maintainers do not recommend to mask Python 3. But everyone else in Gentoo does, so . . . signature.asc Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] Re: Unification of variables used within SCM eclasses
Michał Górny posted on Wed, 24 Mar 2010 12:28:38 +0100 as excerpted: > As suggested by ssuominen on bug #311101, I am posting the issue to the > mailing list. > > Currently, various SCM eclasses differ very much in the subset of > features and control variables implemented. The idea is to establish a > single subset of such variables and rules for all SCM eclasses to > follow, and maybe even develop a common scm.eclass which would be > sourced by other SCM eclasses. > > Variables suggested by me: > > a) Common variables - the variables which would have to be used by > various SCM eclasses as default/fallback values. > > 1. ESCM_DISTDIR (defaulting to PORTAGE_ACTUAL_DISTDIR/PORTDIR) Reasonable idea... The standard note here every time source control comes up, however, is that SCM is ambiguous, conflicting with scheme (the language). VCS (version control system) seems to be the preferred alternative. I'll let the various VCS eclass using devs worry about the details... -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
Re: [gentoo-dev] Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item
2010-03-24 17:57:35 Joshua Saddler napisał(a): > On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 17:43:56 +0100 > Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote: > > > 2010-03-23 20:28:38 Ben de Groot napisał(a): > > > As mentioned in the other thread, this news item should mention > > > that users who do not need python-3 should mask it locally to > > > prevent it from being pulled into the dependency graph. > > > > Python maintainers do not recommend to mask Python 3. > > But everyone else in Gentoo does, so . . . Some Gentoo developers/users, who aren't Python maintainers, said that they didn't object to have Python 3 installed. -- Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item
2010-03-24 17:56:48 Ben de Groot napisał(a): > On 24 March 2010 17:43, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis > wrote: > > 2010-03-23 20:28:38 Ben de Groot napisał(a): > >> On 23 March 2010 20:13, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis > >> wrote: > >> > I'm attaching updated news item, which will be committed soon. > >> > >> As mentioned in the other thread, this news item should mention > >> that users who do not need python-3 should mask it locally to > >> prevent it from being pulled into the dependency graph. > > > > Python maintainers do not recommend to mask Python 3. > > Are you saying that you are just going to brush aside all > concerns that have been voiced about this issue? You will > upset a lot of people if you do that. All valid concerns about text already included in the news item have been addressed. We don't need to include any unofficial recommendations. Proposed news item is better than no news item. -- Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 18:14:44 +0100 Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote: > 2010-03-24 17:57:35 Joshua Saddler napisał(a): > > On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 17:43:56 +0100 > > Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote: > > > Python maintainers do not recommend to mask Python 3. > > > > But everyone else in Gentoo does, so . . . > > 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. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item
On 24 March 2010 18:23, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote: > 2010-03-24 17:56:48 Ben de Groot napisał(a): >> On 24 March 2010 17:43, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis >> wrote: >> > 2010-03-23 20:28:38 Ben de Groot napisał(a): >> >> On 23 March 2010 20:13, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis >> >> wrote: >> >> > I'm attaching updated news item, which will be committed soon. >> >> >> >> As mentioned in the other thread, this news item should mention >> >> that users who do not need python-3 should mask it locally to >> >> prevent it from being pulled into the dependency graph. >> > >> > Python maintainers do not recommend to mask Python 3. >> >> Are you saying that you are just going to brush aside all >> concerns that have been voiced about this issue? You will >> upset a lot of people if you do that. > > All valid concerns about text already included in the news item have been > addressed. We don't need to include any unofficial recommendations. I'll take that as a yes then, you are indeed disregarding the concerns and recommendations of your fellow Gentoo developers. CC'ing devrel because this is getting out of hand. -- Ben de Groot Gentoo Linux Qt project lead developer
Re: [gentoo-dev] Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 10:32 AM, Joshua Saddler wrote: > On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 18:14:44 +0100 > Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote: > >> 2010-03-24 17:57:35 Joshua Saddler napisał(a): >> > On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 17:43:56 +0100 >> > Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote: >> > > Python maintainers do not recommend to mask Python 3. >> > >> > But everyone else in Gentoo does, so . . . >> >> 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 am still of the mind that telling users python3 is here is sufficient. Users should already know how to mask packages; I am unconvinced that this update is any different from any other update where I get a news item that foo is out; I don't want to use foo, so I mask foo. If you want to recommend masking python 3 yourself I suggest you blog about it. -A
Re: [gentoo-dev] Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 10:35 AM, Ben de Groot wrote: > On 24 March 2010 18:23, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis > wrote: >> 2010-03-24 17:56:48 Ben de Groot napisał(a): >>> On 24 March 2010 17:43, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis >>> wrote: >>> > 2010-03-23 20:28:38 Ben de Groot napisał(a): >>> >> On 23 March 2010 20:13, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis >>> >> wrote: >>> >> > I'm attaching updated news item, which will be committed soon. >>> >> >>> >> As mentioned in the other thread, this news item should mention >>> >> that users who do not need python-3 should mask it locally to >>> >> prevent it from being pulled into the dependency graph. >>> > >>> > Python maintainers do not recommend to mask Python 3. >>> >>> Are you saying that you are just going to brush aside all >>> concerns that have been voiced about this issue? You will >>> upset a lot of people if you do that. >> >> All valid concerns about text already included in the news item have been >> addressed. We don't need to include any unofficial recommendations. > > I'll take that as a yes then, you are indeed disregarding the concerns > and recommendations of your fellow Gentoo developers. Except he is under no obligation to follow said recommendations; he is the Python maintainer, not you. -A > > CC'ing devrel because this is getting out of hand. > -- > Ben de Groot > Gentoo Linux Qt project lead developer > >
Re: [gentoo-dev] Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 18:35:21 +0100 Ben de Groot wrote: > I'll take that as a yes then, you are indeed disregarding the concerns > and recommendations of your fellow Gentoo developers. > > CC'ing devrel because this is getting out of hand. Looks like an extremely "productive" thread... /me points at the dependency/python handling bugs filed by the python maintainer and unfixed for like 2+ weeks - http://tinyurl.com/yhlmcq8 I'd assume getting proper dependencies into the tree would make more sense than this pissing contest about a news item. Cheers, DN signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item
2010-03-24 18:32:37 Joshua Saddler napisał(a): > On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 18:14:44 +0100 > Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote: > > > 2010-03-24 17:57:35 Joshua Saddler napisał(a): > > > On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 17:43:56 +0100 > > > Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote: > > > > Python maintainers do not recommend to mask Python 3. > > > > > > But everyone else in Gentoo does, so . . . > > > > 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. People, who don't object to given suggestions, less often reply to them. -- Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 10:32:37 -0700, Joshua Saddler wrote: >> > But everyone else in Gentoo does, so . . . >> >> 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. -Jeremy
Re: [gentoo-dev] Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item
On 3/24/10 6:35 PM, Ben de Groot wrote: >> All valid concerns about text already included in the news item have been >> addressed. We don't need to include any unofficial recommendations. > > I'll take that as a yes then, you are indeed disregarding the concerns > and recommendations of your fellow Gentoo developers. > > CC'ing devrel because this is getting out of hand. I think it's a purely technical issue. The arguments against Python 3 are mostly in the form "I don't feel it's ready". If it can't be resolved on the list (some people want Python 3, some don't), shouldn't the council decide? "The elected Gentoo Council decides on global issues and policies that affect multiple projects in Gentoo." Paweł Hajdan jr signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item
Am 24.03.2010 18:45, schrieb Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis: > 2010-03-24 18:32:37 Joshua Saddler napisał(a): >> On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 18:14:44 +0100 >> Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote: >>> 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. > > People, who don't object to given suggestions, less often reply to them. > I am only a user and read this thread for quite some time. Because I use ~amd64 I already had python 3 on my screen to install. I knew that I don't need it and don't want it so I put it into package.mask. No harm done. I really don't see where the problem is at all. Publish a news message and let all users decide, package.mask is no black magic or rocket science . Just my 2 cent Greetings Sebastian
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item
2010-03-23 20:57:33 Jonathan Callen napisał(a): > On 03/23/2010 03:13 PM, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote: > > I'm attaching updated news item, which will be committed soon. > > > > A couple grammar issues: > > -modules, which support both Python 2 and Python 3, are installed for both > -active version of Python 2 and active version of Python 3, when both Python 2 > -and Python 3 are installed. > +modules that support both Python 2 and Python 3 are installed for both the > +active version of Python 2 and the active version of Python 3 when both > +Python 2 and Python 3 are installed. I have locally applied these changes some hours ago, but I'm attaching updated news item so that it can be reviewed easier. If there are no additional, new suggestions, then the news item will be committed tomorrow. -- Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis Title: Python 3.1 Author: Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis Content-Type: text/plain Posted: 2010-03-24 Revision: 1 News-Item-Format: 1.0 Display-If-Installed: =dev-lang/python-3.1* Python 3 is a new major version of Python and is intentionally incompatible with Python 2. Many external modules have not been ported yet to Python 3, so Python 2 still needs to be installed. You can benefit from having Python 3 installed without setting Python 3.1 as main active version of Python. Currently you should not set Python 3.1 as main active version of Python. When setting it becomes recommended, a separate news item will be created to notify users. Although Python 3.1 should not be set as main active version of Python, you should run python-updater after installation of Python 3.1. By default, modules that support both Python 2 and Python 3 are installed for both the active version of Python 2 and the active version of Python 3 when both Python 2 and Python 3 are installed. It is recommended to use a UTF-8 locale to avoid potential problems. Especially C and POSIX locales are discouraged. If locale has not been explicitly set, then POSIX locale is used, so you should ensure that locale has been set. Problems occurring only with non-UTF-8 locales should be reported directly to upstream developers of given packages. See http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/utf-8.xml for more information about UTF-8. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item
2010-03-24 18:51:48 Paweł Hajdan, Jr. napisał(a): > On 3/24/10 6:35 PM, Ben de Groot wrote: > >> All valid concerns about text already included in the news item have been > >> addressed. We don't need to include any unofficial recommendations. > > > > I'll take that as a yes then, you are indeed disregarding the concerns > > and recommendations of your fellow Gentoo developers. > > > > CC'ing devrel because this is getting out of hand. > > I think it's a purely technical issue. The arguments against Python 3 > are mostly in the form "I don't feel it's ready". If it can't be > resolved on the list (some people want Python 3, some don't), shouldn't > the council decide? People, don't want Python 3, probably have already masked it. There is no reason to waste Council's time for decision on what sentence should be included in the news item. -- Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 05:47:18PM +, Jeremy Olexa wrote: > > On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 10:32:37 -0700, Joshua Saddler > 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 pgpynPDRGw8JU.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 19:04:51 +0100 Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote: > People, don't want Python 3, probably have already masked it. There is > no reason to waste Council's time for decision on what sentence should > be included in the news item. Not the folks running the stable tree, because they don't know about it. They're not following the discussion here on -dev. They're going to get unpleasantly surprised when it shows up in their next world update. Include instructions on how to mask it if desired in the news item. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] when to use a function and an implementation use flag.
I took a look at qemu-kvm and found something I percieve as funny: It had a gnutls use-flag, but no ssl useflag. As I see it is I want ssl/tls support it should be sufficient to enable USE="ssl" and let the maintainer of said ebuild decide which implementation (if more then one) I am better off with and only care about the USE="gnutls openssl nss" if i really think the maintainer is wrong. For qemu-kvm the problem is that there is only one implementation (i.e. gnutls), and if I want to have ssl support I have to enable gnutls for this package. When I wrote a bug about this I got a rather short reply from maintainer about pointing me to the policy about this. Now I know there was a disscussion a while back about this on the mailinglist, but google fails me to find it, looking into the Gentoo Development Guide [1] it fails me too. There is not a _single_ word about how to handle if there is only one implementation, but two use flags for this (one for the function provided - ssl - and one for the actual implementation - gnutls). So I have a question: Is there no policy about this? If there is could someone please point me towards it and also it in that case may be time to update the gentoo development guide. [1] http://devmanual.gentoo.org/general-concepts/use-flags/index.html#conflicting-use-flags
Re: [gentoo-dev] Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item
On 03/24/2010 02:28 PM, Joshua Saddler wrote: On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 19:04:51 +0100 Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote: People, don't want Python 3, probably have already masked it. There is no reason to waste Council's time for decision on what sentence should be included in the news item. Not the folks running the stable tree, because they don't know about it. They're not following the discussion here on -dev. They're going to get unpleasantly surprised when it shows up in their next world update. Include instructions on how to mask it if desired in the news item. Will not masking python-3 cause anything to break in any way? Do users need to do anything to make python-2.6 or whatever the default interpreter (instructions for using eselect python are not given in the news item)? If the only potential issue is that users might have a few extra files installed that they don't need but which won't cause them problems, then I don't know that we need to instruct users to create masks. If having python-3 will cause stable users problems, then we probably shouldn't be stabilizing it anyway. Compared to the KDE 3->4 migration this is probably going to be a fairly minor issue for most stable users, unless we're expecting breakage. Rich
Re: [gentoo-dev] Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item
On 24 March 2010 19:41, Richard Freeman wrote: > On 03/24/2010 02:28 PM, Joshua Saddler wrote: >> >> On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 19:04:51 +0100 Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar >> Arahesis wrote: >>> >>> People, don't want Python 3, probably have already masked it. There >>> is no reason to waste Council's time for decision on what sentence >>> should be included in the news item. >> >> Not the folks running the stable tree, because they don't know about >> it. They're not following the discussion here on -dev. They're going >> to get unpleasantly surprised when it shows up in their next world >> update. >> >> Include instructions on how to mask it if desired in the news item. > > Will not masking python-3 cause anything to break in any way? Do users need > to do anything to make python-2.6 or whatever the default interpreter > (instructions for using eselect python are not given in the news item)? > > If the only potential issue is that users might have a few extra files > installed that they don't need but which won't cause them problems, then I > don't know that we need to instruct users to create masks. > > If having python-3 will cause stable users problems, then we probably > shouldn't be stabilizing it anyway. > > Compared to the KDE 3->4 migration this is probably going to be a fairly > minor issue for most stable users, unless we're expecting breakage. > > Rich Did you even read the whole thread? And the other one named "Packages pulling in python-3*, also they dont require it"? -- Ben de Groot Gentoo Linux Qt project lead developer
Re: [gentoo-dev] Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 02:41:28PM -0400, Richard Freeman wrote: > On 03/24/2010 02:28 PM, Joshua Saddler wrote: > > On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 19:04:51 +0100 Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar > > Arahesis wrote: > >> People, don't want Python 3, probably have already masked it. There > >> is no reason to waste Council's time for decision on what sentence > >> should be included in the news item. > > > > Not the folks running the stable tree, because they don't know about > > it. They're not following the discussion here on -dev. They're going > > to get unpleasantly surprised when it shows up in their next world > > update. > > > > Include instructions on how to mask it if desired in the news item. > > Will not masking python-3 cause anything to break in any way? Do users > need to do anything to make python-2.6 or whatever the default > interpreter (instructions for using eselect python are not given in the > news item)? I'm not the python maintainer, but as I understand it,python-2.6 will be the default interpretor until it is changed manually. > If the only potential issue is that users might have a few extra files > installed that they don't need but which won't cause them problems, then > I don't know that we need to instruct users to create masks. AFAIK, this is the issue. If python-3 is installed, it will cause extra files to be installed, not justin python-3, but any packages that support both python-2 and python-3 will potentially get files installed for both versions of python. > If having python-3 will cause stable users problems, then we probably > shouldn't be stabilizing it anyway. AFAIK, the only "problem" we are debating about is the extra files being installed. William pgpeYHKQY34MQ.pgp Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] Re: Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item
William Hubbs posted on Wed, 24 Mar 2010 13:03:34 -0500 as excerpted: > If users do not want python-3 on > their systems, that is what /etc/portage/package.mask is for. I think pretty much everyone agrees with that. What we're debating is whether the stabling news item should specifically mention package.mask as an option before it goes stable. Fortunately or unfortunately, despite the stated Gentoo policy of "documentation but not hand holding", stable Gentoo users are in fact used to having a bit of extra hand-holding and have come to expect it. While the generally given reason for said hand-holding is that we're simply avoiding the flood of bugs we'd otherwise get, and arguably that doesn't apply in this case (arguably, because there are still and will be new python dependency bugs that this will trigger), it's an expectation stable users have come to have, and failing to specifically mention the package.mask option violates this expectation. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
Re: [gentoo-dev] Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item
Am 24.03.2010 19:03, schrieb William Hubbs: > On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 05:47:18PM +, Jeremy Olexa wrote: >> >> On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 10:32:37 -0700, Joshua Saddler >> 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. 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. -- Thomas Sachau Gentoo Linux Developer signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item
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 +, Jeremy Olexa wrote: > >> > >> On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 10:32:37 -0700, Joshua Saddler > >> 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
Re: [gentoo-dev] Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item
On 24 March 2010 21:25, William Hubbs wrote: > 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. We agree that this is the minimum that should be done. But our Python lead stubbornly refuses to honor this reasonable request. Not so cheerful, -- Ben de Groot Gentoo Linux Qt project lead developer
Re: [gentoo-dev] Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 09:36:52PM +0100, Ben de Groot wrote: > On 24 March 2010 21:25, William Hubbs wrote: > > 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. > > 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. It could be argued that he is just assuming that users are intelligent enough to figure out that they need to mask python-3 if they do not want it on their systems. Basically this is a case of "how much hand-holding do we want to do"? William pgp50bYAOCUx5.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 09:36:52PM +0100, Ben de Groot wrote: > On 24 March 2010 21:25, William Hubbs wrote: > > 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. > > We agree that this is the minimum that should be done. But our > Python lead stubbornly refuses to honor this reasonable request. > > Not so cheerful, > -- > Ben de Groot > Gentoo Linux Qt project lead developer > Another user here. Couldn't this issue with the news item be resolved by wording it differently? The way I've understood the python maintainers is that they don't want the news item to recommend masking it. So couldn't a compromise be phrasing along the lines of "... it is safe to mask python-3* at the moment..." and perhaps also "... a news item will be released when python-3* will become necessary". To be honest I don't think the last bit is quite as relevant if people do pay heed to the fact that python-3* can be masked without any consequence. Can all parties agree to something of this sort? -- Zeerak Waseem pgphFNYVk8q45.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 16:12:55 -0500 William Hubbs 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. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
