On Wed, Jun 5, 2024 at 3:33 PM Wols Lists wrote:
>
> On 05/06/2024 20:15, Meowie Gamer wrote:
> > I must've taken too long to join the mailing list because I missed the
> > first part of whatever's happening here. How did this turn from python 3.12
> > to a conversation about USE?
> >
>
> Becaus
--- Original message ---
From: Grant Edwards
To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2024 22:07:06 +0200
On 2024-06-05, Wols Lists wrote:
On 05/06/2024 13:12, Eli Schwartz wr
On 2024-06-05, Wols Lists wrote:
> On 05/06/2024 13:12, Eli Schwartz wrote:
>> Which I think is fine, if people want that, but not everyone does, so
>> delaying the update altogether might be preferable to those people.
>
> Ie people like me who don't give a monkeys about python, and consider it
I see, thanks for clearing it up.
Meowie
Meowie Gamer wrote:
> I must've taken too long to join the mailing list because I missed the first
> part of whatever's happening here. How did this turn from python 3.12 to a
> conversation about USE?
>
>
Because depending on what path you took to deal with this, you could end
up with entries
On 05/06/2024 20:15, Meowie Gamer wrote:
I must've taken too long to join the mailing list because I missed the first
part of whatever's happening here. How did this turn from python 3.12 to a
conversation about USE?
Because they're using USE or whatever to force packages to stay on 3.11,
b
Wols Lists wrote:
> On 05/06/2024 13:28, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> Implementing dynamic USE management would take somebody a fair bit of
>> effort, and for all I know it would make every emerge you run take an
>> hour to recompute the dependency tree. The ability to configure USE
>> flags, along with
I must've taken too long to join the mailing list because I missed the first
part of whatever's happening here. How did this turn from python 3.12 to a
conversation about USE?
On 05/06/2024 13:28, Rich Freeman wrote:
Implementing dynamic USE management would take somebody a fair bit of
effort, and for all I know it would make every emerge you run take an
hour to recompute the dependency tree. The ability to configure USE
flags, along with the ability to dynamically de
On 6/5/24 2:05 PM, Grant Edwards wrote:
> What I found misleading (and tripped over) was the implication that
> the three step migration process outlined in the news item had a
> reasonable likelyhood of working for a large percentage of users.
>
> If the new items had warned that anybody using on
On 2024-06-05, Arve Barsnes wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Jun 2024 at 20:05, Grant Edwards wrote:
>> What I found misleading (and tripped over) was the implication that
>> the three step migration process outlined in the news item had a
>> reasonable likelyhood of working for a large percentage of users.
>>
On Wed, 5 Jun 2024 at 20:05, Grant Edwards wrote:
> What I found misleading (and tripped over) was the implication that
> the three step migration process outlined in the news item had a
> reasonable likelyhood of working for a large percentage of users.
>
> If the new items had warned that anybod
On 2024-06-05, byte.size...@simplelogin.com
wrote:
> 2) Was anything really 'broken'? Most certainly no, going by the above
> definition and the fact that the news item provided for a very clear
> pathway to maintain compatibility that was essentially a two-line solution.
I think that build
On 2024-06-05, Eli Schwartz wrote:
> On 6/4/24 11:04 PM, Grant Edwards wrote:
>> On 2024-06-04, Eli Schwartz wrote:
>>> If a package claimed to support python 3.12 and nonetheless failed to
>>> build with it, that's a bug in the package -- can you provide more details?
>>
>> IIRC, the first one
On Wed, Jun 5, 2024 at 6:41 AM Dr Rainer Woitok wrote:
>
> And no, I don't buy the point of view that it's the responsibility of
> the developers when my personal set of USE flags suddenly causes con-
> flicts.
>
Agree, but keep in mind that having personal sets of USE flags is
basically a
Grant,
On Tue, 4 Jun 2024 17:00:29 - (UTC) you wrote:
> ...
> I don't see how (even in theory) steps 2 and 3 can work when you have
> packages installed that won't build with 3.12.
That depends on your definition of "work". It occurs even when doing
normal updates that you run into a USE
On 6/4/24 11:04 PM, Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2024-06-04, Eli Schwartz wrote:
>> If a package claimed to support python 3.12 and nonetheless failed to
>> build with it, that's a bug in the package -- can you provide more details?
>
> IIRC, the first one was pycxx. The build faild during the conf
On 2024-06-04, Eli Schwartz wrote:
> On 6/4/24 4:58 PM, Grant Edwards wrote:
>> On 2024-06-04, Eli Schwartz wrote:
>>
>>> Note that it's not a build failure -- it is an upgrade calculation
>>> failure. It fails before upgrading any packages since it knows it can't
>>> resolve the dependencies.
>
On 6/4/24 4:58 PM, Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2024-06-04, Eli Schwartz wrote:
>
>> Note that it's not a build failure -- it is an upgrade calculation
>> failure. It fails before upgrading any packages since it knows it can't
>> resolve the dependencies.
>
> I had plenty of both.
If a package cl
On 2024-06-04, Eli Schwartz wrote:
> Note that it's not a build failure -- it is an upgrade calculation
> failure. It fails before upgrading any packages since it knows it can't
> resolve the dependencies.
I had plenty of both.
--
Grant
On 2024-06-04, Dr Rainer Woitok wrote:
>
> Did nobody of ye all ever read news item 48, dated 2024-05-09? It laid
> out a three-step approach which surely caused at least some packages to
> be built twice or even three times, but it JUST WORKED (tm), at least
> here. It only required creati
21 matches
Mail list logo
