On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 09:13:01PM +0100, Thomas Sachau wrote:
> On 03/18/2010 08:55 PM, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> > 2010-03-18 20:47:35 Thomas Sachau napisał(a):
> >> On 03/18/2010 08:33 PM, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> >>> 2010-03-18 20:20:02 Thomas Sachau napisał(a):
> >>>> Currently, some packages just depend on "dev-lang/python". Arfrever claims it to be right
> >>>
> >>> It's correct only for packages (e.g. dev-python/setuptools), which support all
> >>> versions of Python (including Python 3).
> >>
> >> Can you tell us any benefit for the normal user, when you require him to install python-3*
> > 
> > I don't require it. It's only a side effect of correct dependencies.
> > 
> 
> Wrong. Correct dependencies only require the set of packages they need, they dont pull in packages
> nor versions, which are not used or needed.
> Since you claim portage behaviour being right and you dont want to change "dev-lang/python"
> dependency, you want to force all users to install python-3*, also it is not needed nor used nor is
> there any benefit from it being installed.

dev-lang/python, if the pkg supports py2k/py3k (specifically 
py2.{4,5,6,7}, py3.{0,1,2}), *is* the correct dependency.  End of 
story, no arguement is possible on that.

Note I said 'correct', not 'desired'.  It's the PM's choice how it 
chooses to fullfill that constraint.  Now, even if py3k is basically 
unusable (for anything reliant on a framework, at this point in time 
it is unusable), that *still* doesn't matter- the dependency is 
*correct*.

If you want to influence how the PM chooses what to use, that's 
masking or changing the algo it uses- not screwing up perfectly 
correct dependencies.

Considering that the algo varies across all 3 managers, masking is the 
only tool that exists atm.

~harring