From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MpNnL-00064E-19 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 20 Sep 2009 14:53:44 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5CB31E07B9; Sun, 20 Sep 2009 14:53:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from IMPaqm2.telefonica.net (impaqm2.telefonica.net [213.4.129.22]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 069B8E07B9 for ; Sun, 20 Sep 2009 14:53:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from IMPmailhost1.adm.correo ([10.20.102.38]) by IMPaqm2.telefonica.net with bizsmtp id j2NJ1c00Y0piX6q3M2tgTt; Sun, 20 Sep 2009 16:53:40 +0200 Received: from jesgue.homelinux.org ([78.136.66.163]) by IMPmailhost1.adm.correo with BIZ IMP id j2te1c00Q3XLmEe1h2tffl; Sun, 20 Sep 2009 16:53:39 +0200 X-TE-authinfo: authemail="i92guboj.terra.es" |auth_email="i92guboj@terra.es" X-TE-AcuTerraCos: auth_cuTerraCos="cosuitera01" Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 16:53:37 +0200 From: =?UTF-8?Q?Jes=C3=BAs_Guerrero?= To: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Stabilization of Python 3.1 In-Reply-To: <200909200041.32652.cla@gentoo.org> References: <200909191848.33225.Arfrever@gentoo.org> <1253381283.31816.9.camel@TesterBox.tester.ca> <4AB55BFC.4070205@gmail.com> <200909200041.32652.cla@gentoo.org> Message-ID: <19e69baf3d2d95babe2abc5f89c4322d@localhost> X-Sender: i92guboj@terra.es User-Agent: RoundCube Webmail/0.3-stable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: 194dcf9a-1104-41f1-b7fe-71981821541f X-Archives-Hash: 9c34ebd349c4d60190f694b0970726fb On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 00:41:32 +0200, Dawid W=C4=99gli=C5=84ski wrote: > On Sunday 20 of September 2009 00:32:28 Dale wrote: >> > >> > ~arch is for testing ebuilds, not the upstream package >> >> So it would be OK to mark something "stable" even tho portage itself >> doesn't work with it? Sorry, this makes no sense to me. I run stable >> for the most part and having a package that portage depends on that is >> not stable just sounds a little like putting the cart before the horse= . >> >> See some of the other replies as to why this is a not so good idea. >> >> Dale >> >> :-) :-) >=20 > You mix it up. Portage works with python 3.1. If an user switches to > python=20 > 3.1 as the main interpreter, it's possible that his own scripts won't > work.=20 Yes? # eselect python set 2 # emerge -s foo File "/usr/bin/emerge", line 41 except PermissionDenied, e: ^ SyntaxError: invalid syntax Ummm, yes, it works *beautifully*, you see. Nothing else to add. > Marking it stable sometine in november give's some time to ebuilds=20 > maintainers to fix their python based apps just like it's done with gcc= =20 > stabilization. That's not the usual case. In Gentoo we have a serious policy of not marking as stable things until it has passed one month without any seriou= s bug report about it. And you are proposing to break this rule for a core piece of the OS, right, wonderful.=20 Instead I say, first fix the stuff, and then we can start planning the switch to 3.1 --=20 Jes=C3=BAs Guerrero