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 1NpYEh-0001ea-48 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 11 Mar 2010 02:34:55 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 29C11E089E; Thu, 11 Mar 2010 02:34:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-gw0-f53.google.com (mail-gw0-f53.google.com [74.125.83.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72209E0860 for ; Thu, 11 Mar 2010 02:34:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: by gwj19 with SMTP id 19so4048395gwj.40 for ; Wed, 10 Mar 2010 18:34:31 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:sender:received:date:from:to :subject:message-id:mail-followup-to:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=C5ScXMNWL+DW69vnts+8UpPRaz7Eh0fnphB19ktEtcY=; b=YaZFgc3ydJUaQUj9d8DMY8UL5VqU15oTEDy0u5m3M43PAU+TJrYYk17kHosxCvCKV9 EN8M85S4oNwS82Nv6U1aE4q8E5+5qRhqrdO4qYYqkhgU2WTJGP8AbiedvmhpshCZblxY bZXaSOWQPsdyMCuRgwNrWska1K3jp+feeX2Ic= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:date:from:to:subject:message-id:mail-followup-to:references :mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to :user-agent; b=TQaYjRMg5CDvpgJehqNe1gOyt2Nk6I9TbhaYjA6BNinE6owphbOu2+kSyo2EDwJYlh cdPjYdJGF7leS2M+5KbmGSYMJtkML7ZNsWL2rKqKRv+qNNAC0VdOi9+CeOoUojcsZT2a kx8r7RYHldYtR8oPBK9DfSEjlbMjIoWw2mkos= Received: by 10.151.89.20 with SMTP id r20mr2862286ybl.311.1268274870926; Wed, 10 Mar 2010 18:34:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from linux1 (cpe-76-183-49-63.tx.res.rr.com [76.183.49.63]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 7sm606126ywf.40.2010.03.10.18.34.28 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 10 Mar 2010 18:34:30 -0800 (PST) Sender: William Hubbs Received: by linux1 (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 10 Mar 2010 20:34:27 -0600 Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 20:34:27 -0600 From: William Hubbs To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item Message-ID: <20100311023427.GA19680@linux1> Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: <201003041923.17749.Arfrever@gentoo.org> <4B919F98.2090208@gentoo.org> <20100308212816.GA1309@linux1> <201003101837.02887.Arfrever@gentoo.org> <20100311002514.GA19387@linux1> 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 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="0OAP2g/MAC+5xKAE" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-Archives-Salt: 48055184-4727-4bd8-9a1d-966b859de2d8 X-Archives-Hash: a7b91d35124c9e43e2df9a2725e0d9f5 --0OAP2g/MAC+5xKAE Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 02:24:46AM +0100, Ben de Groot wrote: > On 11 March 2010 01:25, William Hubbs wrote: > > ??If someone has a package that truly works with either python 2 or 3, > > ??what is the harm in automatically pulling in python 3 and installing > > ??the package for both python 2 and 3? > > > > ??As long as pulling in python-3 doesn't change the system's default > > ??python interpretor I don't see a problem with having them both > > ??installed. =20 > I've seen enough python-3 specific bugs to know it is not without > problems. It's a waste of time and resources for something that is > not ready to be used anyway. While it can be argued that that is > what our testing branch is for, it is certainly not something that > should be pushed to stable users. =20 What does upstream say about python 3.1? Are they calling it stable? Yes, it is incompatible with python-2, but, it is set up so both can be on a system at the same time. I'm no expert on python, but I think even upstream has python deliberately set up that way. > Even if it would be just "dead weight", it is not something we should > wish for. It is bloat, it is unnecessary, and causes more problems > than that it solves. Why should users have to compile multiple > python versions, if they only use one anyway? =20 If they are only using python-2 and all of the packages they use only work with python-2, then the dependencies of the packages should be fixed to reflect that. Even if python-3 is stable and the dependencies of the packages they have say that they only support python-2 python-3 will not be on their systems. Someone compared pythohn to gcc earlier in this thread, but I'm not sure that is a fair comparison. AFAIK, gcc is not slotted by upstream, and python is. I think that makes a difference in how we handle it. William --0OAP2g/MAC+5xKAE Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkuYVrMACgkQblQW9DDEZTgQaQCgghWYWO51U7YLr8UPqsmEHhhe 2akAoLqFLnxYrzo/a53HPPBxnRi8mx9n =Ndlg -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --0OAP2g/MAC+5xKAE--