[gentoo-dev] Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item

[gentoo-dev] Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item

[Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 237 bytes --]

All problems, which were blocking stabilization of Python 3, have been fixed.
Stabilization of Python 3.1.2 is currently scheduled on 2010-04-19.
I'm attaching the news item for Python 3.1.

-- 
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis

[-- Attachment #1.2: 2010-03-04-python-3.1.en.txt --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 1372 bytes --]

Title: Python 3.1
Author: Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis <Arfrever@gentoo.org>
Content-Type: text/plain
Posted: 2010-03-04
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
currently Python 3.1 should not be set as main active version of Python.
Setting Python 3.1 as main active version of Python is currently unsupported.
When it will change, a separate news item will be created to notify users.

'eselect python COMMAND --python3 [ARGUMENTS]' can be used to manage
configuration of active version of Python 3.

Although Python 3.1 should not be set as main active version of Python, users
should run python-updater after installation of Python 3.1. By default,
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.

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 users should explicitly set locale. Problems
occuring only with non-UTF-8 locales should be reported directly to upstream
developers of given packages.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item

["Paweł Hajdan, Jr."]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1366 bytes --]

On 3/4/10 7:22 PM, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> Setting Python 3.1 as main active version of Python is currently unsupported.
> When it will change, a separate news item will be created to notify users.

I'd suggest s/users/you

> 'eselect python COMMAND --python3 [ARGUMENTS]' can be used to manage
> configuration of active version of Python 3.

I'm confused by the above paragraph. I had to spend a longer while to
see that it really means "if you want to use eselect-python to manage
your python3 configuration, pass the --python3 switch". Before that I
wondered what is the meaning of COMMAND and ARGUMENTS. Would be nice to
make it more clear.

> Although Python 3.1 should not be set as main active version of Python, users
> should run python-updater after installation of Python 3.1. By default,

Again, IMHO s/users/you, or "please run".

> It is recommended to use a UTF-8 locale to avoid potential problems. Especially

Link to the UTF-8 guide please?

> C and POSIX locales are discouraged. If locale has not been explicitly set,
> then POSIX locale is used, so users should explicitly set locale. Problems

I'd suggest s/users/you, or maybe "make sure you have set locale".

> occuring only with non-UTF-8 locales should be reported directly to upstream

nit: occuring -> occurring

Paweł Hajdan jr


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item

[Sebastian Pipping]

On 03/04/10 19:22, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> All problems, which were blocking stabilization of Python 3, have been fixed.
> Stabilization of Python 3.1.2 is currently scheduled on 2010-04-19.

#python on Freenode still reads "It's too early to use Python 3.x".
Are they wrong?

Are we at a point already where we can feed 90% of the Python 2.x code
out there to Python 3 without problems?

Has QA given their blessing to this?


Personally I want "yes" three times to see you continue with Python 3
stabilization.



Sebastian

Re: [gentoo-dev] Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item

[Dirkjan Ochtman]

On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 22:16, Sebastian Pipping <sping@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Are we at a point already where we can feed 90% of the Python 2.x code
> out there to Python 3 without problems?

No, and that point will never come, but this is not a problem right now.

Python 3 will be installed slotted, as an extra version, and it will
not disturb the Python 2.x versions or any packages that don't work on
3.x (which are marked as such). I have this working on a bunch of
boxes, and it hasn't caused me any problems so far.

Cheers,

Dirkjan

Re: [gentoo-dev] Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item

[Ben de Groot]

On 4 March 2010 22:16, Sebastian Pipping <sping@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 03/04/10 19:22, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
>> All problems, which were blocking stabilization of Python 3, have been fixed.
>> Stabilization of Python 3.1.2 is currently scheduled on 2010-04-19.
>
> #python on Freenode still reads "It's too early to use Python 3.x".
> Are they wrong?

No, they are not wrong. Python 3 is useless for most users. At best
it wastes resources by installing extra python-3 versions of packages
that will never be used because python-2 is the default interpreter,
and they have nothing that really needs python-3. It will also result
in needless runs of python-updater. And it may result in breakage
specific to python-3 which users would not run into if they had only
version 2.x installed.

We need some mechanism to prevent installation of python-3 on
systems of unsuspecting users, and make sure it only gets installed
when the user explicitly chooses to do so. Personally I am
recommending people to locally mask python-3*. I think we should
consider to add it to our package.mask, unless we can find some
other solution.

I am not against it being marked stable, but I am against having
it pulled in on systems that don't need it.

Cheers,
-- 
Ben de Groot
Gentoo Linux developer (qt, media, lxde, desktop-misc)
______________________________________________________

[gentoo-dev] Re: Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item

[Duncan]

Ben de Groot posted on Thu, 04 Mar 2010 23:56:46 +0100 as excerpted:

> Personally I am recommending people to locally mask python-3*. I think
> we should consider to add it to our package.mask, unless we can find
> some other solution.
> 
> I am not against it being marked stable, but I am against having it
> pulled in on systems that don't need it.

++

I've package masked python3 here.  There are some things I like being 
leading, even bleeding edge on.  Python isn't one of them.  When some 
package I want to merge wants python-3 and isn't going to take python-2 
(or if I decide I want to learn python, since one might as well learn 3 at 
this point if they're learning), /then/ I'll consider unmasking it.  Until 
then, or at least for quite some time yet if that doesn't happen, there's 
no reason I need the additional complications of python-3 problems on my 
system.

I'd say the same goes for most users.

-- 
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

[Joshua Saddler]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1361 bytes --]

On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 19:22:41 +0100
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis <Arfrever@gentoo.org> wrote:

> 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
> currently Python 3.1 should not be set as main active version of Python.
> Setting Python 3.1 as main active version of Python is currently unsupported.
> When it will change, a separate news item will be created to notify users.

So nothing uses it yet, and it's completely incompatible with 90% of the numerous python/pygtk apps already on my system, so it'll just sit there, SLOTted, doing nothing but taking up more space on my very limited SSD, while Python 2.6 is the version that's actually in use by every single app.

> Currently Python 3.1 should *NOT* be set as [the] main active version of
> Python.
(emphasis and grammar fix mine)

So . . . why the heck are you stabilizing it?

Please don't spam me or the other users by sticking us with a useless new version. Leave it in ~arch -- it's not at all necessary to force the upgrade by stabilizing it.

We're completely dependent on the hundreds of upstream Python-coded projects to switch on their timetable. Forcing a useless Python version to be the default in Gento doesn't force *them* to write 3.x-compatible code.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item

[Dirkjan Ochtman]

On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 09:25, Joshua Saddler <nightmorph@gentoo.org> wrote:
> So . . . why the heck are you stabilizing it?

Because 'stable' denotes that it works as intended, that it can be
installed easily, etc. All of these are true now for python3. There
are applications being written for it. We want to package those too.
I'm fine with people masking it, and maybe we should make that easier
somehow, but 3.x should definitely be stable.

> We're completely dependent on the hundreds of upstream Python-coded projects to switch on their timetable. Forcing a useless Python version to be the default in Gento doesn't force *them* to write 3.x-compatible code.

It will *NOT* under this proposal be the default. Please formulate
more carefully if you want to make an argument.

Cheers,

Dirkjan

Re: [gentoo-dev] Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item

[Joshua Saddler]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2333 bytes --]

On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 10:10:00 +0100
Dirkjan Ochtman <djc@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Because 'stable' denotes that it works as intended, that it can be
> installed easily, etc. All of these are true now for python3. There
> are applications being written for it. We want to package those too.
> I'm fine with people masking it, and maybe we should make that easier
> somehow, but 3.x should definitely be stable.

It does *not* work as intended.

Here, since your selective quoting missed every point I made, lemme make 'em again:

>> 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
>> currently Python 3.1 should not be set as main active version of Python.
>> Setting Python 3.1 as main active version of Python is currently unsupported.
>> When it will change, a separate news item will be created to notify users.  

>So nothing uses it yet, and it's completely incompatible with 90% of the
>numerous python/pygtk apps already on my system, so it'll just sit there,
>SLOTted, doing nothing but taking up more space on my very limited SSD, while
>Python 2.6 is the version that's actually in use by every single app.

Like I said before, like it says *in the news item*, "stuff does not work with it." How does that qualify as "works as intended" when it will not work with all my packages that use Python?

If you believe stabilizing a package should be done in a vacuum, in an idealized world where no other package cares about another, then congrats, you're on the right track.

>> Currently Python 3.1 should *NOT* be set as [the] main active version of
>> Python.

This is in the friggin' news item itself. If it should not be used, then don't force stable users to install it.

> It will *NOT* under this proposal be the default. Please formulate
> more carefully if you want to make an argument.

If it's stable, then users get it by default, assuming they run the stable tree. They install a recent stage3, build their system, run emerge -uD world. Bam, a useless version of Python is now installed. Nothing on their systems will use it, so it's bloat.

> but 3.x should definitely be stable

No one has said yet why this is. So . . . direct question, gimme a direct answer: why?

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item

[Dirkjan Ochtman]

On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 10:41, Joshua Saddler <nightmorph@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>> 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
>>> currently Python 3.1 should not be set as main active version of Python.
>>> Setting Python 3.1 as main active version of Python is currently unsupported.
>>> When it will change, a separate news item will be created to notify users.
>
>>So nothing uses it yet, and it's completely incompatible with 90% of the
>>numerous python/pygtk apps already on my system, so it'll just sit there,
>>SLOTted, doing nothing but taking up more space on my very limited SSD, while
>>Python 2.6 is the version that's actually in use by every single app.
>
> Like I said before, like it says *in the news item*, "stuff does not work with it." How does that qualify as "works as intended" when it will not work with all my packages that use Python?

Because it's a frigging major revision that breaks some backwards compatibility!

>>> Currently Python 3.1 should *NOT* be set as [the] main active version of
>>> Python.
>
> This is in the friggin' news item itself. If it should not be used, then don't force stable users to install it.

I don't want to force stable users to install it. I *do* however want
to install it as part of the stable tree on some of my servers. And I
don't think it's sensible that I have to force it to be stable
somehow, I want my packagers to say, hey, we checked this and it
should just work (for the intended purpose, which is NOT running code
written for python2).

> If it's stable, then users get it by default, assuming they run the stable tree. They install a recent stage3, build their system, run emerge -uD world. Bam, a useless version of Python is now installed. Nothing on their systems will use it, so it's bloat.

I agree that that's bad, but I do not agree that not stabilizing it is
the right solution.

> No one has said yet why this is. So . . . direct question, gimme a direct answer: why?

Because in my opinion stable means that the people who package this
are stating that hey, we did some testing with this, it works with all
of the other packages you have installed that want to use it. It does
not mean everyone should have it installed, which is what it appears
you think it means.

Cheers,

Dirkjan

Re: [gentoo-dev] Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item

[Zac Medico]

On 03/05/2010 01:41 AM, Joshua Saddler wrote:
> If it's stable, then users get it by default, assuming they run the stable tree. They install a recent stage3, build their system, run emerge -uD world. Bam, a useless version of Python is now installed. Nothing on their systems will use it, so it's bloat.

In portage-2.1.7.x (current stable), there is support for
pseudo-version-ranges in dependencies. This allows you use a
dependency like <dev-lang/python-3 in a package that doesn't support
python3, and that will prevent it from getting pulled into the
dependency graph.

If a package that supports python3 gets pulled into the depedency
graph, then either it's the user's responsibility to mask it or else
we could provide the ability to disable python3 support with a USE
flag setting.
-- 
Thanks,
Zac

Re: [gentoo-dev] Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item

[Joshua Saddler]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1025 bytes --]

On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 10:56:23 +0100
Dirkjan Ochtman <djc@gentoo.org> wrote:

> > No one has said yet why this is. So . . . direct question, gimme a direct
> > answer: why?
> 
> Because in my opinion stable means that the people who package this
> are stating that hey, we did some testing with this, it works with all
> of the other packages you have installed that want to use it.

Aaaand none of my packages that are installed "want" to use it. That's what I'm sayin'. Maybe if I ran ~arch they'd ask for Python 3.x, but I run stable, so *nothing* wants to use it. Every other stable user is in the same situation. You seem to be ignoring us, the stable users, in favor of rushing 3.x out of ~arch, like that makes some kind of perceived problem go away.

> It does
> not mean everyone should have it installed, which is what it appears
> you think it means.

Yet that's the net effect -- everyone *will* have it installed. . . unless folks start getting crafty with pseudo version ranges, as Zac mentioned.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item

[Dirkjan Ochtman]

On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 11:14, Joshua Saddler <nightmorph@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Aaaand none of my packages that are installed "want" to use it. That's what I'm sayin'. Maybe if I ran ~arch they'd ask for Python 3.x, but I run stable, so *nothing* wants to use it. Every other stable user is in the same situation. You seem to be ignoring us, the stable users, in favor of rushing 3.x out of ~arch, like that makes some kind of perceived problem go away.

I *am* a stable user, and I do want to install python3 (without having
to override keywords -- because my packager, the gentoo python team,
says it works!). I recognize the cruft problem, but I don't think
keeping things in unstable is the right solution for solving it,
because they should IMO be orthogonal.

> Yet that's the net effect -- everyone *will* have it installed. . . unless folks start getting crafty with pseudo version ranges, as Zac mentioned.

I guess we'll have to do that then.

Cheers,

Dirkjan

Re: [gentoo-dev] Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item

[Maciej Mrozowski]

On Friday 05 of March 2010 11:22:18 Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:

> I *am* a stable user, and I do want to install python3 (without having
> to override keywords -- because my packager, the gentoo python team,
> says it works!). I recognize the cruft problem, but I don't think
> keeping things in unstable
                    ^^^^^^^^
It's "testing" :)

Now on more serious note, ideally python could be treated just like any other 
non-leaf package (in dependency tree), just like library. In such case it's 
completely reasonable to stabilize the newest version of such 'library', 
especially when it's slotted and doesn't conflict in any way with the rest.
However, because of being used by package manager, python is leaf application 
really and it's going to be immediately pulled for everyone.

It would be nice if portage didn't automatically pull newest available 
packages with new SLOTs unless explicitly referenced in dependencies. That 
would have certainly caused python 3 stabilization to be a non issue.
(@Zac is this "greedy/non-greedy' behaviour you've talking some time ago?)

Hmm, but that would also prevent automatic KDE 4.x -> 4.y updates..

-- 
regards
MM

Re: [gentoo-dev] Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item

[Zac Medico]

On 03/05/2010 03:09 AM, Maciej Mrozowski wrote:
> Now on more serious note, ideally python could be treated just like any other 
> non-leaf package (in dependency tree), just like library. In such case it's 
> completely reasonable to stabilize the newest version of such 'library', 
> especially when it's slotted and doesn't conflict in any way with the rest.
> However, because of being used by package manager, python is leaf application 
> really and it's going to be immediately pulled for everyone.

It won't be pulled in by sys-apps/portage dependencies which look
like this:

 || ( dev-lang/python:2.8 dev-lang/python:2.7 dev-lang/python:2.6
>=dev-lang/python-3 )

If you already have python:2.6 installed then it will not pull in a
new slot.

> It would be nice if portage didn't automatically pull newest available 
> packages with new SLOTs unless explicitly referenced in dependencies. That 
> would have certainly caused python 3 stabilization to be a non issue.
> (@Zac is this "greedy/non-greedy' behaviour you've talking some time ago?)
> 
> Hmm, but that would also prevent automatic KDE 4.x -> 4.y updates..

In portage-2.1.7.x (current stable), there is support for
pseudo-version-ranges in dependencies. This allows you use a
dependency like <dev-lang/python-3 in a package that doesn't support
python3, and that will prevent it from getting pulled into the
dependency graph.

If a package that supports python3 gets pulled into the depedency
graph, then either it's the user's responsibility to mask it or else
we could provide the ability to disable python3 support with a USE
flag setting.
-- 
Thanks,
Zac

Re: [gentoo-dev] Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item

[Ben de Groot]

On 5 March 2010 12:24, Zac Medico <zmedico@gentoo.org> wrote:
> It won't be pulled in by sys-apps/portage dependencies which look
> like this:
>
>  || ( dev-lang/python:2.8 dev-lang/python:2.7 dev-lang/python:2.6
>>=dev-lang/python-3 )
>
> If you already have python:2.6 installed then it will not pull in a
> new slot.

That means we would need to fix all packages that depend on
python to use this style of dependency notation. Or do some
eclass magic with NEED_PYTHON for example.

And of course anyone with an unslotted dev-lang/python in their
world file will still pull the useless version.

Another possible solution is to rename the package to a unique
string like dev-lang/python3, tho I agree that is sub-optimal.

Cheers,
-- 
Ben de Groot
Gentoo Linux developer (qt, media, lxde, desktop-misc)
______________________________________________________

Re: [gentoo-dev] Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item

[Alistair Bush]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1733 bytes --]

> On 5 March 2010 12:24, Zac Medico <zmedico@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > It won't be pulled in by sys-apps/portage dependencies which look
> > like this:
> > 
> >  || ( dev-lang/python:2.8 dev-lang/python:2.7 dev-lang/python:2.6
> > 
> >>=dev-lang/python-3 )
> >>
> > If you already have python:2.6 installed then it will not pull in a
> > new slot.
> 
> That means we would need to fix all packages that depend on
> python to use this style of dependency notation. Or do some
> eclass magic with NEED_PYTHON for example.
> 
> And of course anyone with an unslotted dev-lang/python in their
> world file will still pull the useless version.

Then they shouldn't have dev-lang/python in their world file then should they.  
Or should we start putting special magic rules around everywhere.  Hell i'm 
sure I have useless crap in my world file,  you don't see be bitching about 
being forced to upgrade some package I never use.  If it is in there then it 
is my responsibility,  not yours.

Guys you should remember that we like to call gentoo a metadistribution [1].  
Our users should be taking an active role in the maintenance of the own distro  
what we should be doing is saying yes we have determined this package to be 
stable.  The news item should tell users they can safely mask python:3 if they 
wish.

The only concern I have is all the [>]dev-lang/python [R]DEPENDs there are in 
the tree.   They should be fixed to either be slotted or a dependency range.  
Thank god this will never happen again now that we have slot deps....  right? 
:|

Alistair.


[1]  http://www.gentoo.org/main/en/about.xml
[2]  and by this I mean looking to see what packages are going to be installed 
and whether they really want to install them.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 6447 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item

[Duncan]

Zac Medico posted on Fri, 05 Mar 2010 03:24:29 -0800 as excerpted:

> On 03/05/2010 03:09 AM, Maciej Mrozowski wrote:
>> Now on more serious note, ideally python could be treated just like any
>> other non-leaf package (in dependency tree), just like library. In such
>> case it's completely reasonable to stabilize the newest version of such
>> 'library', especially when it's slotted and doesn't conflict in any way
>> with the rest. However, because of being used by package manager,
>> python is leaf application really and it's going to be immediately
>> pulled for everyone.
> 
> It won't be pulled in by sys-apps/portage dependencies which look like
> this:
> 
>  || ( dev-lang/python:2.8 dev-lang/python:2.7 dev-lang/python:2.6
>>=dev-lang/python-3 )
> 
> If you already have python:2.6 installed then it will not pull in a new
> slot.

Won't emerge -aNuD pull it in anyway, even in a new slot, since portage 
says it can use it?  I know I use that, so I'm always updated all the way 
thru the system, not just at the leaves.

I know it did for me on ~arch, the reason I have it masked.

So, as has already been proposed, why not stable it, while at the same 
time masking it, with an appropriate masking message explaining that it is 
stable, but we're just preventing the majority of folks from pulling it 
in, since they don't need it yet?

That way, those who want/need it can unmask it the usual way, and everyone 
can continue as the were... at least until the first package requiring 
python-3 only comes along.  Realistically, how long is that likely to be?

Otherwise, what about a news item saying it's to be stabilized, and 
warning people that don't think they want or need it to put it in 
package.mask themselves?  That would seem to be about the best compromise 
I can see ATM.

-- 
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

[Andy Kittner]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 904 bytes --]

On Sat, Mar 06, 2010 at 06:23:03AM +1300, Alistair Bush wrote:
> [...]
>
>Guys you should remember that we like to call gentoo a metadistribution [1].
>Our users should be taking an active role in the maintenance of the own distro
> [...]

As a user I have to thank you very much for this statement. These are
exactly my thoughts whenever these lengthy discussions about changing
some default setting crop up. The main reason I love gentoo is because
it makes it easy to have everything my way. (Un)masking something is as
simple as adding one line in /etc/portage/package.(un)mask, so I only
marginally care about whether something is stable, testing or even
package masked.

As a side remark to all those who argue themselves to death in the
"cups useflag in default profile" thread: The same applies to disabling
and enabling useflags ;)

Well I guess I should go back into hiding now.

Regards,
Andy

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item

[Ryan Hill]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 911 bytes --]

On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 13:37:28 +0100
Ben de Groot <yngwin@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On 5 March 2010 12:24, Zac Medico <zmedico@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > It won't be pulled in by sys-apps/portage dependencies which look
> > like this:
> >
> >  || ( dev-lang/python:2.8 dev-lang/python:2.7 dev-lang/python:2.6
> >>=dev-lang/python-3 )
> >
> > If you already have python:2.6 installed then it will not pull in a
> > new slot.
> 
> That means we would need to fix all packages that depend on
> python to use this style of dependency notation. Or do some
> eclass magic with NEED_PYTHON for example.

Or PYTHON_DEPEND?

http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/Python/developersguide.xml


-- 
fonts,                                            by design, by neglect
gcc-porting,                              for a fact or just for effect
wxwidgets @ gentoo     EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item

[Zac Medico]

On 03/05/2010 11:26 AM, Duncan wrote:
> Zac Medico posted on Fri, 05 Mar 2010 03:24:29 -0800 as excerpted:
> 
>> On 03/05/2010 03:09 AM, Maciej Mrozowski wrote:
>>> Now on more serious note, ideally python could be treated just like any
>>> other non-leaf package (in dependency tree), just like library. In such
>>> case it's completely reasonable to stabilize the newest version of such
>>> 'library', especially when it's slotted and doesn't conflict in any way
>>> with the rest. However, because of being used by package manager,
>>> python is leaf application really and it's going to be immediately
>>> pulled for everyone.
>>
>> It won't be pulled in by sys-apps/portage dependencies which look like
>> this:
>>
>>  || ( dev-lang/python:2.8 dev-lang/python:2.7 dev-lang/python:2.6
>>> =dev-lang/python-3 )
>>
>> If you already have python:2.6 installed then it will not pull in a new
>> slot.
> 
> Won't emerge -aNuD pull it in anyway, even in a new slot, since portage 
> says it can use it?  I know I use that, so I'm always updated all the way 
> thru the system, not just at the leaves.

No, it won't. To prove it, I've just tested with a stable stage3
containing portage-2.1.7.x. Here are the steps:

1) extract stable stage3 and chroot into it
2) mkdir /etc/portage && echo "dev-lang/python ~*" >>
/etc/portage/package.keywords
3) Run `emerge -pu --deep=1 portage`:
   These are the packages that would be merged, in order:

   Calculating dependencies... done!
   [ebuild     UD] sys-apps/sandbox-1.6-r2 [2.2]
   [ebuild     UD] app-shells/bash-4.0_p35 [4.0_p37]
   [ebuild     U ] dev-lang/python-2.6.4-r1 [2.6.4]

If you try `emerge -puD world` then you will see
dev-lang/python-3.1.1-r1 pulled in by the unspecific dev-lang/python
atoms in the cracklib and libxml2 dependencies. However, in
portage-2.1.7.x (current stable), there is support for
pseudo-version-ranges in dependencies. This allows you use a
dependency like <dev-lang/python-3 in a package that doesn't support
python3, and that will prevent it from getting pulled into the
dependency graph.
-- 
Thanks,
Zac

Re: [gentoo-dev] Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item

[Mark Loeser]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1347 bytes --]

Sebastian Pipping <sping@gentoo.org> said:
> On 03/04/10 19:22, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> > All problems, which were blocking stabilization of Python 3, have been fixed.
> > Stabilization of Python 3.1.2 is currently scheduled on 2010-04-19.
> 
> #python on Freenode still reads "It's too early to use Python 3.x".
> Are they wrong?

I'd believe them.

> Are we at a point already where we can feed 90% of the Python 2.x code
> out there to Python 3 without problems?

Doesn't seem that way.

> Has QA given their blessing to this?

Absolutely not.  Its actually the opposite.  Until 90+% of the tree just
works with the new version of python, it should not be stabilized.  The
stable tree should all Just Work together.  Stabilizing python-3 at this
point would be the equivalent of me stabilizing gcc-4.5 after its been
in the tree for a few months and nothing else works with it.  Sure, gcc
works just fine, but it can't compile half of the tree.

I hope everyone can see that this is a terrible idea and of no use to
our stable users.  If a stable user really needs Python-3, they will
have the technical ability to unmask it and use it properly.

-- 
Mark Loeser
email         -   halcy0n AT gentoo DOT org
email         -   mark AT halcy0n DOT com
web           -   http://www.halcy0n.com

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item

[Samuli Suominen]

On 03/07/2010 07:11 PM, Mark Loeser wrote:
> Sebastian Pipping <sping@gentoo.org> said:
>> On 03/04/10 19:22, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
>>> All problems, which were blocking stabilization of Python 3, have been fixed.
>>> Stabilization of Python 3.1.2 is currently scheduled on 2010-04-19.
>>
>> #python on Freenode still reads "It's too early to use Python 3.x".
>> Are they wrong?
> 
> I'd believe them.
> 
>> Are we at a point already where we can feed 90% of the Python 2.x code
>> out there to Python 3 without problems?
> 
> Doesn't seem that way.
> 
>> Has QA given their blessing to this?
> 
> Absolutely not.  Its actually the opposite.  Until 90+% of the tree just
> works with the new version of python, it should not be stabilized.  The
> stable tree should all Just Work together.  Stabilizing python-3 at this
> point would be the equivalent of me stabilizing gcc-4.5 after its been
> in the tree for a few months and nothing else works with it.  Sure, gcc
> works just fine, but it can't compile half of the tree.
> 
> I hope everyone can see that this is a terrible idea and of no use to
> our stable users.  If a stable user really needs Python-3, they will
> have the technical ability to unmask it and use it properly.
> 

+1

no need to stabilize experimental python, not even convinced it should
be in ~arch yet (but package.masked for testing)

Re: [gentoo-dev] Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item

[Petteri Räty]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1144 bytes --]

On 03/07/2010 07:11 PM, Mark Loeser wrote:
> 
> Absolutely not.  Its actually the opposite.  Until 90+% of the tree just
> works with the new version of python, it should not be stabilized.  The
> stable tree should all Just Work together.  Stabilizing python-3 at this
> point would be the equivalent of me stabilizing gcc-4.5 after its been
> in the tree for a few months and nothing else works with it.  Sure, gcc
> works just fine, but it can't compile half of the tree.
> 

Bad analogy in my opinion. You don't really want to mix and match gcc
versions while compiling packages but with python packages you can
continue installing and running under 2* just fine. If a stable package
uses 2* it's not a blocker for 3*.

> I hope everyone can see that this is a terrible idea and of no use to
> our stable users.  If a stable user really needs Python-3, they will
> have the technical ability to unmask it and use it properly.
> 

In my opinion python-3 should go stable when there's enough ebuilds
needing it as a dependency. It doesn't need to nowhere near 90% of
python packages in the tree.

Regards,
Petteri


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 900 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item

[Petteri Räty]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 374 bytes --]

On 03/07/2010 07:32 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> 
> +1
> 
> no need to stabilize experimental python, not even convinced it should
> be in ~arch yet (but package.masked for testing)
> 

I don't think upstream considers python 3 experimental so when it can be
installed side by side with 2.6 so that ebuilds don't break it belongs
in ~arch.

Regards,
Petteri


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 900 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item

[Joshua Saddler]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 607 bytes --]

On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 20:26:24 +0200
Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 03/07/2010 07:32 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> > no need to stabilize experimental python, not even convinced it should
> > be in ~arch yet (but package.masked for testing)
> I don't think upstream considers python 3 experimental so when it can be
> installed side by side with 2.6 so that ebuilds don't break it belongs
> in ~arch.

Fine, then let's leave it in ~arch. Don't stabilize it yet. See below:

Mark Loeser <halcy0n@gentoo.org> wrote:
> The stable tree should all Just Work together.

That's why.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item

[Ryan Hill]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2299 bytes --]

On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 12:11:47 -0500
Mark Loeser <halcy0n@gentoo.org> wrote:

> > Has QA given their blessing to this?
> 
> Absolutely not.  Its actually the opposite.  Until 90+% of the tree just
> works with the new version of python, it should not be stabilized.  The
> stable tree should all Just Work together.  Stabilizing python-3 at this
> point would be the equivalent of me stabilizing gcc-4.5 after its been
> in the tree for a few months and nothing else works with it.  Sure, gcc
> works just fine, but it can't compile half of the tree.

I don't think it's the same.  This is like saying we can't stabilize qt-4
because half the tree is (was) qt-3.  These packages are likely never going
to work with the newer version, that's why it's slotted and now we have an
admittedly impressive framework for making sure python-2 programs get
python-2 and python-3 get python-3.

Another example from my camp is wxGTK.  Half the stuff in the tree (even now)
doesn't work with 2.8, so we introduced a system where packages would get the
version they needed, while users could use whatever version they wanted
independent of portage.  2.8 has been stable for over 3 years now.

I've been messing with the new python stuff this past week and I'm sold.  If
you recall I was one of the people completely against the idea last time this
topic came up.

> I hope everyone can see that this is a terrible idea and of no use to
> our stable users.  If a stable user really needs Python-3, they will
> have the technical ability to unmask it and use it properly.

A stable user who doesn't want python 3 installed shouldn't have it forced on
them.  If something is pulling in python-3 then that package needs to have
its dependencies fixed.  IIRC Portage isn't greedy wrt. SLOTs like it was
before (unless you use @installed) so it shouldn't be pulled in by anything
that doesn't require it.

Are we really saying that no python-3-based package can go into stable until
90% of the tree is python-3?  That's like, 5 years from now, if ever.


-- 
fonts,                                            by design, by neglect
gcc-porting,                              for a fact or just for effect
wxwidgets @ gentoo     EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item

[Zeerak Mustafa Waseem]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3106 bytes --]

On Sun, Mar 07, 2010 at 09:08:14PM -0600, Ryan Hill wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 12:11:47 -0500
> Mark Loeser <halcy0n@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> > > Has QA given their blessing to this?
> > 
> > Absolutely not.  Its actually the opposite.  Until 90+% of the tree just
> > works with the new version of python, it should not be stabilized.  The
> > stable tree should all Just Work together.  Stabilizing python-3 at this
> > point would be the equivalent of me stabilizing gcc-4.5 after its been
> > in the tree for a few months and nothing else works with it.  Sure, gcc
> > works just fine, but it can't compile half of the tree.
> 
> I don't think it's the same.  This is like saying we can't stabilize qt-4
> because half the tree is (was) qt-3.  These packages are likely never going
> to work with the newer version, that's why it's slotted and now we have an
> admittedly impressive framework for making sure python-2 programs get
> python-2 and python-3 get python-3.
> 
> Another example from my camp is wxGTK.  Half the stuff in the tree (even now)
> doesn't work with 2.8, so we introduced a system where packages would get the
> version they needed, while users could use whatever version they wanted
> independent of portage.  2.8 has been stable for over 3 years now.
> 
> I've been messing with the new python stuff this past week and I'm sold.  If
> you recall I was one of the people completely against the idea last time this
> topic came up.
> 
> > I hope everyone can see that this is a terrible idea and of no use to
> > our stable users.  If a stable user really needs Python-3, they will
> > have the technical ability to unmask it and use it properly.
> 
> A stable user who doesn't want python 3 installed shouldn't have it forced on
> them.  If something is pulling in python-3 then that package needs to have
> its dependencies fixed.  IIRC Portage isn't greedy wrt. SLOTs like it was
> before (unless you use @installed) so it shouldn't be pulled in by anything
> that doesn't require it.
> 
> Are we really saying that no python-3-based package can go into stable until
> 90% of the tree is python-3?  That's like, 5 years from now, if ever.
> 
> 
> -- 
> fonts,                                            by design, by neglect
> gcc-porting,                              for a fact or just for effect
> wxwidgets @ gentoo     EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662


I think that is being said is, due to python 3 being unnecessary for majority of users, due to a small number of applications actually using it, it should be in ~arch. Of course an application that depends on python 3, but is entirely stable should not be marked testing (to my reckoning at least). I think the best way to go about it is to set python-3 in ~arch. As it has been said, should a user need python 3 they most likely know what they're doing and keywording it shouldn't be a problem.
So my vote goes towards stabilizing the applications that depend on python three, in their due time, and keeping python-3 keyworded.

-- 
Zeerak Waseem

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item

[Duncan]

Petteri Räty posted on Sun, 07 Mar 2010 20:25:07 +0200 as excerpted:

> n my opinion python-3 should go stable when there's enough ebuilds
> needing it as a dependency. It doesn't need to nowhere near 90% of
> python packages in the tree.

Indeed.

Given that it's slotted and (barring bugs) won't interfere, and would need 
to be stabilized before another package requiring it can be stabilized, 
that would seem to be the point at which we need to worry about 
stabilization -- when other package stabilization is being blocked because 
they require python-3, which isn't yet stable.

But until that point... and I've seen nothing even pointed out for 
discussion as an example of such a package yet... I don't see that it 
needs to be (or should be) in stable at all.  When such packages appear, 
/then/ we can discuss if the time is right w.r.t. everything else (non-
interfering slots, etc, vs. popularity of depending package(s)).  Until 
then, I just don't see the purpose or point in it.

-- 
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] Re: Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item

[Matti Bickel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1797 bytes --]

Zeerak Mustafa Waseem wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 07, 2010 at 09:08:14PM -0600, Ryan Hill wrote:
>> A stable user who doesn't want python 3 installed shouldn't have it
>> forced on them.  If something is pulling in python-3 then that
>> package needs to have its dependencies fixed.  IIRC Portage isn't
>> greedy wrt. SLOTs like it was before (unless you use @installed) so
>> it shouldn't be pulled in by anything that doesn't require it.

+1 on that. If your program is only tested with python-2 or has
regressions with python-3 (e.g. performance loss), a maintainer can and
should mark that package as python-2 only. For new systems, the only
"must have" python user i can think of is portage. And that has an
explicit USE="python3" and as Zac outlined takes DEPEND-pains to ensure
python-2.* is pulled in if available. So you're starting with python-2.*
and every program not explicitly pulling in python-3.* should be happy
with that.

> I think that is being said is, due to python 3 being unnecessary for
> majority of users, due to a small number of applications actually
> using it, it should be in ~arch.

You're actually damning most of the tree to be ~arch, if that's the
criterion for stable.

> Of course an application that depends on python 3, but is entirely
> stable should not be marked testing (to my reckoning at least). I
> think the best way to go about it is to set python-3 in ~arch.

These are contradicting statements. Repoman will and should kill anyone
attempting to do that. All [R,]DEPENDS of an ebuild must be stable, if
that ebuild is to be marked stable, too.

So b/c i still can't understand what's so horrible about python-3 going
into stable (even if p.mask'ed, if that's the consensus), my vote goes
to "mark it stable already".


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 260 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item

[Antoni Grzymala]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2570 bytes --]

Matti Bickel dixit (2010-03-08, 10:39):

> >> A stable user who doesn't want python 3 installed shouldn't have it
> >> forced on them.  If something is pulling in python-3 then that
> >> package needs to have its dependencies fixed.  IIRC Portage isn't
> >> greedy wrt. SLOTs like it was before (unless you use @installed) so
> >> it shouldn't be pulled in by anything that doesn't require it.
> 
> +1 on that. If your program is only tested with python-2 or has
> regressions with python-3 (e.g. performance loss), a maintainer can and
> should mark that package as python-2 only. For new systems, the only
> "must have" python user i can think of is portage. And that has an
> explicit USE="python3" and as Zac outlined takes DEPEND-pains to ensure
> python-2.* is pulled in if available. So you're starting with python-2.*
> and every program not explicitly pulling in python-3.* should be happy
> with that.
> 
> > I think that is being said is, due to python 3 being unnecessary for
> > majority of users, due to a small number of applications actually
> > using it, it should be in ~arch.
> 
> You're actually damning most of the tree to be ~arch, if that's the
> criterion for stable.
> 
> > Of course an application that depends on python 3, but is entirely
> > stable should not be marked testing (to my reckoning at least). I
> > think the best way to go about it is to set python-3 in ~arch.
> 
> These are contradicting statements. Repoman will and should kill anyone
> attempting to do that. All [R,]DEPENDS of an ebuild must be stable, if
> that ebuild is to be marked stable, too.
> 
> So b/c i still can't understand what's so horrible about python-3 going
> into stable (even if p.mask'ed, if that's the consensus), my vote goes
> to "mark it stable already".

Sorry guys if I missed something crucial in this lengthy thread, but
from what I'm understanding:

if python-3 goes stable (and unmasked):

- it is a separate, slotted version
- it generally shouldn't get pulled in (current portage non-greedy
  behaviour on slots)
- if it does get pulled in by, say, and old portage version, or a
  package with badly defined deps, it shouldn't do any harm because it
  will just sit quietly in its slot and old packages will still
  compile/run against (already installed) python-2.x

or not?

PS. one thing I realize I may be missing is the /usr/bin/python symlink
and the /usr/bin/python-wrapper to which it points. Will the default
change to python31 upon python-3 installation?

best,

-- 
[a]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item

[Peter Hjalmarsson]

mån 2010-03-08 klockan 10:53 +0100 skrev Antoni Grzymala:

> Sorry guys if I missed something crucial in this lengthy thread, but
> from what I'm understanding:
> 
> if python-3 goes stable (and unmasked):
> 
> - it is a separate, slotted version
> - it generally shouldn't get pulled in (current portage non-greedy
>   behaviour on slots)
> - if it does get pulled in by, say, and old portage version, or a
>   package with badly defined deps, it shouldn't do any harm because it
>   will just sit quietly in its slot and old packages will still
>   compile/run against (already installed) python-2.x
> 
> or not?
> 
> PS. one thing I realize I may be missing is the /usr/bin/python symlink
> and the /usr/bin/python-wrapper to which it points. Will the default
> change to python31 upon python-3 installation?
> 
> best,
> 

AFAICS you are right (and that is also why I have a hard time
understanding the flames here, are people so against fixing the deps in
their packages and/or filing bugs and/or contacting devrel about those
maintainers who refuse to fix their packages?).

about your ps: pyhon-3 is absolutely harmless in its current form, and
that is partly because it does not take over the role as the system
python unless you do something stupid/uninformed.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item

[Petteri Räty]

On 8.3.2010 16.23, Peter Hjalmarsson wrote:

> 
> AFAICS you are right (and that is also why I have a hard time
> understanding the flames here, are people so against fixing the deps in
> their packages and/or filing bugs and/or contacting devrel about those
> maintainers who refuse to fix their packages?).
> 

There's some history with the original author that contributes to people
being negative about this. This is not the first thread about python-3
and many feel that it's being forced on them when they have no use for
it (but the forcing part doesn't match reality that much any more as has
been shown). I don't think anyone is against fixing the deps but who
takes the job of reviewing them all?

Regards,
Petteri

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item

[William Hubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1315 bytes --]

On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 04:19:36PM -0800, Zac Medico wrote:
> No, it won't. To prove it, I've just tested with a stable stage3
> containing portage-2.1.7.x. Here are the steps:
> 
> 1) extract stable stage3 and chroot into it
> 2) mkdir /etc/portage && echo "dev-lang/python ~*" >>
> /etc/portage/package.keywords
> 3) Run `emerge -pu --deep=1 portage`:
>    These are the packages that would be merged, in order:
> 
>    Calculating dependencies... done!
>    [ebuild     UD] sys-apps/sandbox-1.6-r2 [2.2]
>    [ebuild     UD] app-shells/bash-4.0_p35 [4.0_p37]
>    [ebuild     U ] dev-lang/python-2.6.4-r1 [2.6.4]
> 
> If you try `emerge -puD world` then you will see
> dev-lang/python-3.1.1-r1 pulled in by the unspecific dev-lang/python
> atoms in the cracklib and libxml2 dependencies. However, in
> portage-2.1.7.x (current stable), there is support for
> pseudo-version-ranges in dependencies. This allows you use a
> dependency like <dev-lang/python-3 in a package that doesn't support
> python3, and that will prevent it from getting pulled into the

According to this, we can fix all of the dependencies in the tree then
stabilize python3 without having any issues, so I would vote for this
route, because it still oinsures that the stable tree will work
together.

William


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item

[Christian Faulhammer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 807 bytes --]

Hi,

Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis <Arfrever@gentoo.org>:

> All problems, which were blocking stabilization of Python 3, have
> been fixed. Stabilization of Python 3.1.2 is currently scheduled on
> 2010-04-19. I'm attaching the news item for Python 3.1.

 Will add my comments for the whole thread here:

 As far as I can see, there is no danger to any program as long as
Python 3 is not set as system python.  As soon as the request is filed
I will install it on my stable systems and try it...for some weeks to
be absolutely sure nothing happens.  Then I have nothing against
marking it stable on x86 and will do so.

V-Li

-- 
Christian Faulhammer, Gentoo Lisp project
<URL:http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/lisp/>, #gentoo-lisp on FreeNode

<URL:http://gentoo.faulhammer.org/>

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item

[Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 1734 bytes --]

2010-03-08 22:28:16 William Hubbs napisał(a):
> On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 04:19:36PM -0800, Zac Medico wrote:
> > No, it won't. To prove it, I've just tested with a stable stage3
> > containing portage-2.1.7.x. Here are the steps:
> > 
> > 1) extract stable stage3 and chroot into it
> > 2) mkdir /etc/portage && echo "dev-lang/python ~*" >>
> > /etc/portage/package.keywords
> > 3) Run `emerge -pu --deep=1 portage`:
> >    These are the packages that would be merged, in order:
> > 
> >    Calculating dependencies... done!
> >    [ebuild     UD] sys-apps/sandbox-1.6-r2 [2.2]
> >    [ebuild     UD] app-shells/bash-4.0_p35 [4.0_p37]
> >    [ebuild     U ] dev-lang/python-2.6.4-r1 [2.6.4]
> > 
> > If you try `emerge -puD world` then you will see
> > dev-lang/python-3.1.1-r1 pulled in by the unspecific dev-lang/python
> > atoms in the cracklib and libxml2 dependencies. However, in
> > portage-2.1.7.x (current stable), there is support for
> > pseudo-version-ranges in dependencies. This allows you use a
> > dependency like <dev-lang/python-3 in a package that doesn't support
> > python3, and that will prevent it from getting pulled into the
> 
> According to this, we can fix all of the dependencies in the tree then
> stabilize python3 without having any issues, so I would vote for this
> route, because it still oinsures that the stable tree will work
> together.

Almost everybody has at least 1 package installed which supports both Python 2
and Python 3 and depends on dev-lang/python without version specification,
so Python 3 would be pulled into dependency graph, so fixing of dependencies
doesn't need to block stabilization of Python 3.

-- 
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item

[Ben de Groot]

On 10 March 2010 18:36, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
<Arfrever@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Almost everybody has at least 1 package installed which supports both Python 2
> and Python 3 and depends on dev-lang/python without version specification,
> so Python 3 would be pulled into dependency graph,

The problem is that we want to prevent that from happening.
Or at the very least advise our users that they should mask
python-3* unless they want it to be pulled in.

Cheers,
-- 
Ben de Groot
Gentoo Linux developer (qt, media, lxde, desktop-misc)
______________________________________________________

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item

[William Hubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 904 bytes --]

On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 11:43:04PM +0100, Ben de Groot wrote:
> On 10 March 2010 18:36, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
> <Arfrever@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > Almost everybody has at least 1 package installed which supports both Python 2
> > and Python 3 and depends on dev-lang/python without version specification,
> > so Python 3 would be pulled into dependency graph,
> 
> The problem is that we want to prevent that from happening.
> Or at the very least advise our users that they should mask
> python-3* unless they want it to be pulled in.
 
 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.

William


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item

[Ben de Groot]

On 11 March 2010 01:25, William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> 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.

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.

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?

Cheers,
-- 
Ben de Groot
Gentoo Linux developer (qt, media, lxde, desktop-misc)
______________________________________________________

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item

[William Hubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1902 bytes --]

On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 02:24:46AM +0100, Ben de Groot wrote:
> On 11 March 2010 01:25, William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> 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.
 
> 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.
 
 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?
 
 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


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item

[Jacob Godserv]

The problem here, I think, is everyone has their opinion about what it
means for something to go stable, and I haven't seen more than one or
two references to what has been predetermined as policy for
stabilization. I think we should do a little less debating over
personal opinions (which is a "hot" topic, apparently) and more about
how Gentoo guidelines determine what can go stable. If the guidelines
don't cover this, then they ought to be fixed.

-- 
    Jacob

    "For then there will be great distress, unequaled
    from the beginning of the world until now — and never
    to be equaled again. If those days had not been cut
    short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the
    elect those days will be shortened."

    Are you ready?

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item

[Alec Warner]

On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 9:04 PM, Jacob Godserv <jacobgodserv@gmail.com> wrote:
> The problem here, I think, is everyone has their opinion about what it
> means for something to go stable, and I haven't seen more than one or
> two references to what has been predetermined as policy for
> stabilization. I think we should do a little less debating over
> personal opinions (which is a "hot" topic, apparently) and more about
> how Gentoo guidelines determine what can go stable. If the guidelines
> don't cover this, then they ought to be fixed.

The opinions of most of the people in this thread are not directly
relevant anyway.  The maintainer gets to decide when to file a
stablereq bug for their package and the arch teams to get to decide
whether to mark something stable on their arch or not.  So someone
just make a decision and move forward; we will never reach consensus
here (and we should not be trying to reach one anyway.)

-A

>
> --
>    Jacob
>
>    "For then there will be great distress, unequaled
>    from the beginning of the world until now — and never
>    to be equaled again. If those days had not been cut
>    short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the
>    elect those days will be shortened."
>
>    Are you ready?
>
>

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item

[Ravi Pinjala]

On 03/10/10 11:36, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> 2010-03-08 22:28:16 William Hubbs napisał(a):
>> On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 04:19:36PM -0800, Zac Medico wrote:
>>> No, it won't. To prove it, I've just tested with a stable stage3
>>> containing portage-2.1.7.x. Here are the steps:
>>>
>>> 1) extract stable stage3 and chroot into it
>>> 2) mkdir /etc/portage&&  echo "dev-lang/python ~*">>
>>> /etc/portage/package.keywords
>>> 3) Run `emerge -pu --deep=1 portage`:
>>>     These are the packages that would be merged, in order:
>>>
>>>     Calculating dependencies... done!
>>>     [ebuild     UD] sys-apps/sandbox-1.6-r2 [2.2]
>>>     [ebuild     UD] app-shells/bash-4.0_p35 [4.0_p37]
>>>     [ebuild     U ] dev-lang/python-2.6.4-r1 [2.6.4]
>>>
>>> If you try `emerge -puD world` then you will see
>>> dev-lang/python-3.1.1-r1 pulled in by the unspecific dev-lang/python
>>> atoms in the cracklib and libxml2 dependencies. However, in
>>> portage-2.1.7.x (current stable), there is support for
>>> pseudo-version-ranges in dependencies. This allows you use a
>>> dependency like<dev-lang/python-3 in a package that doesn't support
>>> python3, and that will prevent it from getting pulled into the
>>
>> According to this, we can fix all of the dependencies in the tree then
>> stabilize python3 without having any issues, so I would vote for this
>> route, because it still oinsures that the stable tree will work
>> together.
>
> Almost everybody has at least 1 package installed which supports both Python 2
> and Python 3 and depends on dev-lang/python without version specification,
> so Python 3 would be pulled into dependency graph, so fixing of dependencies
> doesn't need to block stabilization of Python 3.
>

What about introducing a python3 USE flag? Seems like that would keep 
everybody happy.

--Ravi

Re: [gentoo-dev] Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item

[Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 688 bytes --]

2010-03-04 19:38:12 Paweł Hajdan, Jr. napisał(a):
> On 3/4/10 7:22 PM, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> > 'eselect python COMMAND --python3 [ARGUMENTS]' can be used to manage
> > configuration of active version of Python 3.
> 
> I'm confused by the above paragraph. I had to spend a longer while to
> see that it really means "if you want to use eselect-python to manage
> your python3 configuration, pass the --python3 switch". Before that I
> wondered what is the meaning of COMMAND and ARGUMENTS. Would be nice to
> make it more clear.

This paragraph is probably not needed for average users, so I will remove it.

-- 
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item

[Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 284 bytes --]

I'm attaching updated news item, which will be committed soon.

Stabilization has been delayed to 2010-04-21, but members of architecture
projects can start testing now, to ensure that all potential problems have
been found and fixed.

-- 
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis

[-- Attachment #1.2: 2010-03-23-python-3.1.en.txt --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 1426 bytes --]

Title: Python 3.1
Author: Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis <Arfrever@gentoo.org>
Content-Type: text/plain
Posted: 2010-03-23
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, 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.

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.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item

[Ben de Groot]

On 23 March 2010 20:13, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
<Arfrever@gentoo.org> 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.

-- 
Ben de Groot
Gentoo Linux Qt project lead developer

[gentoo-dev] Re: Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item

[Jonathan Callen]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

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.

- -- 
Jonathan Callen
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAkupHS0ACgkQOypDUo0oQOp+3ACdFdADMtd40bbzDO+/8wUgefZb
7gEAnj/SNtfF3/0FAXNw/ffRki4vjE7o
=cCyr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item

[Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 506 bytes --]

2010-03-23 20:28:38 Ben de Groot napisał(a):
> On 23 March 2010 20:13, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
> <Arfrever@gentoo.org> 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

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item

[Ben de Groot]

On 24 March 2010 17:43, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
<Arfrever@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 2010-03-23 20:28:38 Ben de Groot napisał(a):
>> On 23 March 2010 20:13, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
>> <Arfrever@gentoo.org> 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

[Joshua Saddler]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 457 bytes --]

On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 17:43:56 +0100
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis <Arfrever@gentoo.org> 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 . . .

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item

[Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 694 bytes --]

2010-03-24 17:57:35 Joshua Saddler napisał(a):
> On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 17:43:56 +0100
> Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis <Arfrever@gentoo.org> 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

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item

[Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 1041 bytes --]

2010-03-24 17:56:48 Ben de Groot napisał(a):
> On 24 March 2010 17:43, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
> <Arfrever@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > 2010-03-23 20:28:38 Ben de Groot napisał(a):
> >> On 23 March 2010 20:13, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
> >> <Arfrever@gentoo.org> 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

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item

[Joshua Saddler]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 575 bytes --]

On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 18:14:44 +0100
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis <Arfrever@gentoo.org> wrote:

> 2010-03-24 17:57:35 Joshua Saddler napisał(a):
> > On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 17:43:56 +0100
> > Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis <Arfrever@gentoo.org> 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.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item

[Ben de Groot]

On 24 March 2010 18:23, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
<Arfrever@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 2010-03-24 17:56:48 Ben de Groot napisał(a):
>> On 24 March 2010 17:43, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
>> <Arfrever@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> > 2010-03-23 20:28:38 Ben de Groot napisał(a):
>> >> On 23 March 2010 20:13, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
>> >> <Arfrever@gentoo.org> 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

[Alec Warner]

On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 10:32 AM, Joshua Saddler <nightmorph@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 18:14:44 +0100
> Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis <Arfrever@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
>> 2010-03-24 17:57:35 Joshua Saddler napisał(a):
>> > On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 17:43:56 +0100
>> > Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis <Arfrever@gentoo.org> 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

[Alec Warner]

On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 10:35 AM, Ben de Groot <yngwin@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 24 March 2010 18:23, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
> <Arfrever@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> 2010-03-24 17:56:48 Ben de Groot napisał(a):
>>> On 24 March 2010 17:43, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
>>> <Arfrever@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>> > 2010-03-23 20:28:38 Ben de Groot napisał(a):
>>> >> On 23 March 2010 20:13, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
>>> >> <Arfrever@gentoo.org> 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

[Doktor Notor]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 605 bytes --]

On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 18:35:21 +0100
Ben de Groot <yngwin@gentoo.org> 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

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item

[Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 772 bytes --]

2010-03-24 18:32:37 Joshua Saddler napisał(a):
> On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 18:14:44 +0100
> Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis <Arfrever@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> > 2010-03-24 17:57:35 Joshua Saddler napisał(a):
> > > On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 17:43:56 +0100
> > > Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis <Arfrever@gentoo.org> 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

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item

[Jeremy Olexa]

On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 10:32:37 -0700, Joshua Saddler <nightmorph@gentoo.org>
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

["Paweł Hajdan, Jr."]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 751 bytes --]

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


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item

[Sebastian Beßler]

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 <Arfrever@gentoo.org> 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

[Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 882 bytes --]

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

[-- Attachment #1.2: 2010-03-24-python-3.1.en.txt --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 1430 bytes --]

Title: Python 3.1
Author: Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis <Arfrever@gentoo.org>
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.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item

[William Hubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1624 bytes --]

On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 05:47:18PM +0000, Jeremy Olexa wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 10:32:37 -0700, Joshua Saddler <nightmorph@gentoo.org>
> 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


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item

[Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 917 bytes --]

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

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item

[Joshua Saddler]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 570 bytes --]

On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 19:04:51 +0100
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis <Arfrever@gentoo.org> 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.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item

[Richard Freeman]

On 03/24/2010 02:28 PM, Joshua Saddler wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 19:04:51 +0100 Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar
> Arahesis<Arfrever@gentoo.org>  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

[Ben de Groot]

On 24 March 2010 19:41, Richard Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 03/24/2010 02:28 PM, Joshua Saddler wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 19:04:51 +0100 Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar
>> Arahesis<Arfrever@gentoo.org>  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

[William Hubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1791 bytes --]

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<Arfrever@gentoo.org>  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


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item

[Duncan]

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

[Thomas Sachau]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2618 bytes --]

Am 24.03.2010 19:03, schrieb William Hubbs:
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 05:47:18PM +0000, Jeremy Olexa wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 10:32:37 -0700, Joshua Saddler <nightmorph@gentoo.org>
>> 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


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 316 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item

[William Hubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3391 bytes --]

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 +0000, Jeremy Olexa wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 10:32:37 -0700, Joshua Saddler <nightmorph@gentoo.org>
> >> 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


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item

[Ben de Groot]

On 24 March 2010 21:25, William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> 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

[William Hubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 947 bytes --]

On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 09:36:52PM +0100, Ben de Groot wrote:
> On 24 March 2010 21:25, William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> 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


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item

[Zeerak Mustafa Waseem]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1243 bytes --]

On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 09:36:52PM +0100, Ben de Groot wrote:
> On 24 March 2010 21:25, William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> 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

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item

[Joshua Saddler]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 770 bytes --]

On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 16:12:55 -0500
William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> 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.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item

[Richard Freeman]

On 03/24/2010 11:47 PM, Joshua Saddler wrote:
> Even then, it'll likely get
> installed first, as users will probably learn about p.masking it only
> *after* they install it.

I don't have strong feelings on whether having v3 installed by default 
is a big problem, but the last bit here probably should be addressed.

The current news item only shows up for people with python 3.1 already 
installed.  Would it make sense to have it show up for anybody with any 
version of python installed?  Otherwise it is news after-the-fact.

Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item

[Roy Bamford]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1714 bytes --]

On 2010.03.24 21:12, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 09:36:52PM +0100, Ben de Groot wrote:
> > On 24 March 2010 21:25, William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> 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
> 
> 

The case where Python-3 cannot be used as the default Python is 
transitory (it may be a long time). Should we advise users of stable to 
mask it, we will get a lot of pleas for help when Python-3 is required 
because many users will have forgotten all about package.mask

In my view, its better to avoid these future unmasking issues as stable 
users tend to be very wary of unmasking things and let them have 
Python-3 unless they are already comfortable with the contents of /etc/
portage ... in which case they are not using stable anyway. 
 
-- 
Regards,

Roy Bamford
(Neddyseagoon) a member of
gentoo-ops
forum-mods
trustees


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item

[Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 1504 bytes --]

2010-03-25 19:34:24 Roy Bamford napisał(a):
> On 2010.03.24 21:12, William Hubbs wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 09:36:52PM +0100, Ben de Groot wrote:
> > > On 24 March 2010 21:25, William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> 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
> > 
> > 
> 
> The case where Python-3 cannot be used as the default Python is 
> transitory (it may be a long time).

Gentoo Python Project will soon start supporting setting Python 3 as main
active version of Python. Currently about 57% of our packages from dev-python
category are prepared.

-- 
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item

[Marijn Schouten (hkBst)]

On Thursday 25 March 2010 20:05:17 Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> 2010-03-25 19:34:24 Roy Bamford napisał(a):
> > On 2010.03.24 21:12, William Hubbs wrote:
> > The case where Python-3 cannot be used as the default Python is 
> > transitory (it may be a long time).
> 
> Gentoo Python Project will soon start supporting setting Python 3 as main
> active version of Python. Currently about 57% of our packages from dev-python
> category are prepared.

That's really good news! Why not wait a little bit until this is accomplished?
I know it would make me feel a lot more comfortable with having python 3 in stable.

Marijn

Re: [gentoo-dev] Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item

[Pacho Ramos]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1036 bytes --]

El jue, 25-03-2010 a las 11:37 -0400, Richard Freeman escribió:
> On 03/24/2010 11:47 PM, Joshua Saddler wrote:
> > Even then, it'll likely get
> > installed first, as users will probably learn about p.masking it only
> > *after* they install it.
> 
> I don't have strong feelings on whether having v3 installed by default 
> is a big problem, but the last bit here probably should be addressed.
> 
> The current news item only shows up for people with python 3.1 already 
> installed.  Would it make sense to have it show up for anybody with any 
> version of python installed?  Otherwise it is news after-the-fact.
> 
> Rich
> 

Hello

Maybe I have misunderstood anything (since I don't know much about
python stuff) but, what would occur if I forget to mask python-3 and
don't run python-updater. My plans would be to try to delay
python-updater running until I switch to use python3, because some
machines I maintain are quite old and takes some time to re-emerge all
python apps :-/

Thanks for the info

[-- Attachment #2: Esta parte del mensaje está firmada digitalmente --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item

[Zac Medico]

On 03/26/2010 02:02 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> El jue, 25-03-2010 a las 11:37 -0400, Richard Freeman escribió:
>> On 03/24/2010 11:47 PM, Joshua Saddler wrote:
>>> Even then, it'll likely get
>>> installed first, as users will probably learn about p.masking it only
>>> *after* they install it.
>>
>> I don't have strong feelings on whether having v3 installed by default 
>> is a big problem, but the last bit here probably should be addressed.
>>
>> The current news item only shows up for people with python 3.1 already 
>> installed.  Would it make sense to have it show up for anybody with any 
>> version of python installed?  Otherwise it is news after-the-fact.
>>
>> Rich
>>
> 
> Hello
> 
> Maybe I have misunderstood anything (since I don't know much about
> python stuff) but, what would occur if I forget to mask python-3 and
> don't run python-updater. My plans would be to try to delay
> python-updater running until I switch to use python3, because some
> machines I maintain are quite old and takes some time to re-emerge all
> python apps :-/
> 
> Thanks for the info

If you don't want to run python-updater, then you'd better mask
python3 and uninstall it. Otherwise, you'll encounter build failures
due to new packages trying to build for python3 when their
dependencies haven't been rebuilt with python3 support. There's no
harm done since it's easy to mask and uninstall python3 at this
point, thereby avoiding the need to run python-updater.
-- 
Thanks,
Zac

Re: [gentoo-dev] Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item

[Zac Medico]

On 03/26/2010 12:59 AM, Marijn Schouten (hkBst) wrote:
> On Thursday 25 March 2010 20:05:17 Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
>> 2010-03-25 19:34:24 Roy Bamford napisał(a):
>>> On 2010.03.24 21:12, William Hubbs wrote:
>>> The case where Python-3 cannot be used as the default Python is 
>>> transitory (it may be a long time).
>>
>> Gentoo Python Project will soon start supporting setting Python 3 as main
>> active version of Python. Currently about 57% of our packages from dev-python
>> category are prepared.
> 
> That's really good news! Why not wait a little bit until this is accomplished?
> I know it would make me feel a lot more comfortable with having python 3 in stable.

I don't see any gain in delaying the stabilization except that
people who decide they don't have resources to spare for python3
will have more time before they need to mask it locally. This subset
of people probably won't change much whether it's stabilized now or
a year from now. So, it's mostly a question of whether these people
need to mask in now or mask it later.
-- 
Thanks,
Zac

Re: [gentoo-dev] Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item

[Pacho Ramos]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1772 bytes --]

El vie, 26-03-2010 a las 05:10 -0700, Zac Medico escribió:
> > Hello
> > 
> > Maybe I have misunderstood anything (since I don't know much about
> > python stuff) but, what would occur if I forget to mask python-3 and
> > don't run python-updater. My plans would be to try to delay
> > python-updater running until I switch to use python3, because some
> > machines I maintain are quite old and takes some time to re-emerge all
> > python apps :-/
> > 
> > Thanks for the info
> 
> If you don't want to run python-updater, then you'd better mask
> python3 and uninstall it. Otherwise, you'll encounter build failures
> due to new packages trying to build for python3 when their
> dependencies haven't been rebuilt with python3 support. There's no
> harm done since it's easy to mask and uninstall python3 at this
> point, thereby avoiding the need to run python-updater.

Thanks a lot Zac for the explanation

Arfrever, could this be noted in news item? I mean, since you are
clearly in favor of python3 stabilization, you have prepared news item
and *seems to me* that you prefer to not suggest or "recommend" its
local masking in that news item, maybe you could find a way to write
news informing users that they will need mask new python if they prefer
to postpone python-updater run (since I think some users, like me, will
prefer to not rebuild lots of packages until most of them will work with
newer python), that way it wouldn't "sound" as much like a "generic
recommendation" but more like a needed step for users not wanting to run
python-updater yet (that would be like a "special case" common enough to
take care of it).

Would it be ok for you? Maybe that way most of us could reach a
consensus on this :-)

Thanks a lot

[-- Attachment #2: Esta parte del mensaje está firmada digitalmente --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item

[Zac Medico]

On 03/24/2010 08:47 PM, Joshua Saddler wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 16:12:55 -0500
> William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> 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.

Do we have a precedent on this, if for example, we look at the last
time that a new slot of java (like 1.5) came out that wasn't
supported by all packages and therefore couldn't be set as the
default system jvm?
-- 
Thanks,
Zac

Re: [gentoo-dev] Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item

[Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 945 bytes --]

Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis 2010-03-25 20:05:17 napisał(a):
> 2010-03-25 19:34:24 Roy Bamford napisał(a):
> > The case where Python-3 cannot be used as the default Python is 
> > transitory (it may be a long time).
> 
> Gentoo Python Project will soon start supporting setting Python 3 as main
> active version of Python. Currently about 57% of our packages from dev-python
> category are prepared.

My script was wrong. More correct data:
About 55% of packages in dev-python category belonging to python herd are prepared.
100% of packages in net-zope category belonging to python herd are prepared.
About 60% of packages belonging to python herd are prepared.
About 47% of packages in dev-python category not belonging to python herd are prepared.
About 13% of packages not belonging to python herd are prepared.
About 34% of all packages depending on Python are prepared.

-- 
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item

[Brian Harring]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1502 bytes --]

On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 05:35:19AM -0700, Zac Medico wrote:
> On 03/24/2010 08:47 PM, Joshua Saddler wrote:
> > On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 16:12:55 -0500
> > William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> 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.
> 
> Do we have a precedent on this, if for example, we look at the last
> time that a new slot of java (like 1.5) came out that wasn't
> supported by all packages and therefore couldn't be set as the
> default system jvm?

There really isn't a precedent since upgrades of this sort typically 
either have extremely locked down deps, or just plain don't happen 
till the vast majority of depndencies are updated.  If in doubt, look 
at the past python upgrades- they've been delayed till all of the 
major consumers played nice w/ the targeted python version.

~harring

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item

[Brian Harring]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1518 bytes --]

On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 03:22:52PM +0100, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis 2010-03-25 20:05:17 napisał(a):
> > 2010-03-25 19:34:24 Roy Bamford napisał(a):
> > > The case where Python-3 cannot be used as the default Python is 
> > > transitory (it may be a long time).
> > 
> > Gentoo Python Project will soon start supporting setting Python 3 as main
> > active version of Python. Currently about 57% of our packages from dev-python
> > category are prepared.
>
> My script was wrong. More correct data:
> About 55% of packages in dev-python category belonging to python herd are prepared.
> 100% of packages in net-zope category belonging to python herd are prepared.
> About 60% of packages belonging to python herd are prepared.
> About 47% of packages in dev-python category not belonging to python herd are prepared.
> About 13% of packages not belonging to python herd are prepared.
> About 34% of all packages depending on Python are prepared.

I get the feeling your phrasing here is a bit misleading- 'support 
setting py3k as main active python' implies that the stats above are 
the # of pkgs in the tree supporting *using* a py3k interpretter.

I'm betting you mean "support multi-abi", meaning if you've got py2.6 
and py3.1, it'll install into py2.6, while avoiding py3k.  Fair bit of 
a difference.

Kindly clarify- if over half of the raw dev-python pkgs are py3k 
parsable I'm going to be very, very surprised.

~harring

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item

[Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 592 bytes --]

2010-03-26 16:40:37 Brian Harring napisał(a):
> There really isn't a precedent since upgrades of this sort typically 
> either have extremely locked down deps, or just plain don't happen 
> till the vast majority of depndencies are updated.  If in doubt, look 
> at the past python upgrades- they've been delayed till all of the 
> major consumers played nice w/ the targeted python version.

Main active version of Python was automatically updated during previous Python
upgrades, but it's not updated during installation of Python 3.1.

-- 
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item

[Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 1671 bytes --]

2010-03-26 16:43:57 Brian Harring napisał(a):
> On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 03:22:52PM +0100, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> > Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis 2010-03-25 20:05:17 napisał(a):
> > > 2010-03-25 19:34:24 Roy Bamford napisał(a):
> > > > The case where Python-3 cannot be used as the default Python is 
> > > > transitory (it may be a long time).
> > > 
> > > Gentoo Python Project will soon start supporting setting Python 3 as main
> > > active version of Python. Currently about 57% of our packages from dev-python
> > > category are prepared.
> >
> > My script was wrong. More correct data:
> > About 55% of packages in dev-python category belonging to python herd are prepared.
> > 100% of packages in net-zope category belonging to python herd are prepared.
> > About 60% of packages belonging to python herd are prepared.
> > About 47% of packages in dev-python category not belonging to python herd are prepared.
> > About 13% of packages not belonging to python herd are prepared.
> > About 34% of all packages depending on Python are prepared.
> 
> I get the feeling your phrasing here is a bit misleading- 'support 
> setting py3k as main active python' implies that the stats above are 
> the # of pkgs in the tree supporting *using* a py3k interpretter.
> 
> I'm betting you mean "support multi-abi", meaning if you've got py2.6 
> and py3.1, it'll install into py2.6, while avoiding py3k.  Fair bit of 
> a difference.

These numbers include packages which support installation for multiple Python ABIs
and packages which call python_set_active_version().

-- 
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item

[Dale]

Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> 2010-03-26 16:40:37 Brian Harring napisał(a):
>    
>> There really isn't a precedent since upgrades of this sort typically
>> either have extremely locked down deps, or just plain don't happen
>> till the vast majority of depndencies are updated.  If in doubt, look
>> at the past python upgrades- they've been delayed till all of the
>> major consumers played nice w/ the targeted python version.
>>      
> Main active version of Python was automatically updated during previous Python
> upgrades, but it's not updated during installation of Python 3.1.
>
>    

As a user, I still think this could turn into a real mess.  I think 
there will be quite a few that will see python being updated, run 
python-updater and switch it to the new python.  At that point, it is 
going to hit the fan.  I know because this is what I always do.  News 
item or not, when python gets updated, I run python-updater and make 
sure it is selected.

If this somehow breaks portage, which it shouldn't since apparently 
portage is fine with the new python, then it is going to really hit the fan.

Me, I'm going to make SURE nothing changes on my system.  Then I'm going 
to sit back and see what happens, good or bad.  I can't imagine anything 
good but I sure can imagine bad things.

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-dev] Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item

[Brian Harring]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2500 bytes --]

On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 05:04:28PM +0100, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> 2010-03-26 16:43:57 Brian Harring napisał(a):
> > On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 03:22:52PM +0100, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> > > Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis 2010-03-25 20:05:17 napisał(a):
> > > > 2010-03-25 19:34:24 Roy Bamford napisał(a):
> > > > > The case where Python-3 cannot be used as the default Python is 
> > > > > transitory (it may be a long time).
> > > > 
> > > > Gentoo Python Project will soon start supporting setting Python 3 as main
> > > > active version of Python. Currently about 57% of our packages from dev-python
> > > > category are prepared.
> > >
> > > My script was wrong. More correct data:
> > > About 55% of packages in dev-python category belonging to python herd are prepared.
> > > 100% of packages in net-zope category belonging to python herd are prepared.
> > > About 60% of packages belonging to python herd are prepared.
> > > About 47% of packages in dev-python category not belonging to python herd are prepared.
> > > About 13% of packages not belonging to python herd are prepared.
> > > About 34% of all packages depending on Python are prepared.
> > 
> > I get the feeling your phrasing here is a bit misleading- 'support 
> > setting py3k as main active python' implies that the stats above are 
> > the # of pkgs in the tree supporting *using* a py3k interpretter.
> > 
> > I'm betting you mean "support multi-abi", meaning if you've got py2.6 
> > and py3.1, it'll install into py2.6, while avoiding py3k.  Fair bit of 
> > a difference.
> 
> These numbers include packages which support installation for multiple Python ABIs
> and packages which call python_set_active_version().

Bleh.  So in other words a third of the pkgs that dep on python have 
the minimal basics for dealing w/ py3k landing.  I'd question what 
percentile have proper locked deps also (stating they're py2k only), 
but that's a seperate discussion.

That *still* doesn't answer the question of how many can be *ran* by 
py3k also.

Note in the past when breakages of this sort have been unleashed, the 
percentile of prepared pkgs has been generally a helluva lot higher- 
having 90% prepared is one thing, but y'all aren't at that point and 
you've got 3 weeks (after what, 3 months?) to bring the percentile 
higher then a third?

What's the minimal percentile you're aiming for prior to the 
unmasking?

~harring

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item

[Alec Warner]

On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 4:08 PM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
> Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
>>
>> 2010-03-26 16:40:37 Brian Harring napisał(a):
>>
>>>
>>> There really isn't a precedent since upgrades of this sort typically
>>> either have extremely locked down deps, or just plain don't happen
>>> till the vast majority of depndencies are updated.  If in doubt, look
>>> at the past python upgrades- they've been delayed till all of the
>>> major consumers played nice w/ the targeted python version.
>>>
>>
>> Main active version of Python was automatically updated during previous
>> Python
>> upgrades, but it's not updated during installation of Python 3.1.
>>
>>
>
> As a user, I still think this could turn into a real mess.  I think there
> will be quite a few that will see python being updated, run python-updater
> and switch it to the new python.  At that point, it is going to hit the fan.
>  I know because this is what I always do.  News item or not, when python
> gets updated, I run python-updater and make sure it is selected.

My assumption here is that eselect-python will not let you select v3
as your python version without some prodding (eg setting stupid
environment variables or similar.)

>
> If this somehow breaks portage, which it shouldn't since apparently portage
> is fine with the new python, then it is going to really hit the fan.
>
> Me, I'm going to make SURE nothing changes on my system.  Then I'm going to
> sit back and see what happens, good or bad.  I can't imagine anything good
> but I sure can imagine bad things.

Such faith ;)

>
> Dale
>
> :-)  :-)
>
>

Re: [gentoo-dev] Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item

[Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 2814 bytes --]

2010-03-26 17:15:42 Brian Harring napisał(a):
> On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 05:04:28PM +0100, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> > 2010-03-26 16:43:57 Brian Harring napisał(a):
> > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 03:22:52PM +0100, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> > > > Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis 2010-03-25 20:05:17 napisał(a):
> > > > > 2010-03-25 19:34:24 Roy Bamford napisał(a):
> > > > > > The case where Python-3 cannot be used as the default Python is 
> > > > > > transitory (it may be a long time).
> > > > > 
> > > > > Gentoo Python Project will soon start supporting setting Python 3 as main
> > > > > active version of Python. Currently about 57% of our packages from dev-python
> > > > > category are prepared.
> > > >
> > > > My script was wrong. More correct data:
> > > > About 55% of packages in dev-python category belonging to python herd are prepared.
> > > > 100% of packages in net-zope category belonging to python herd are prepared.
> > > > About 60% of packages belonging to python herd are prepared.
> > > > About 47% of packages in dev-python category not belonging to python herd are prepared.
> > > > About 13% of packages not belonging to python herd are prepared.
> > > > About 34% of all packages depending on Python are prepared.
> > > 
> > > I get the feeling your phrasing here is a bit misleading- 'support 
> > > setting py3k as main active python' implies that the stats above are 
> > > the # of pkgs in the tree supporting *using* a py3k interpretter.
> > > 
> > > I'm betting you mean "support multi-abi", meaning if you've got py2.6 
> > > and py3.1, it'll install into py2.6, while avoiding py3k.  Fair bit of 
> > > a difference.
> > 
> > These numbers include packages which support installation for multiple Python ABIs
> > and packages which call python_set_active_version().
> 
> Bleh.  So in other words a third of the pkgs that dep on python have 
> the minimal basics for dealing w/ py3k landing.  I'd question what 
> percentile have proper locked deps also (stating they're py2k only), 
> but that's a seperate discussion.
> 
> That *still* doesn't answer the question of how many can be *ran* by 
> py3k also.
> 
> Note in the past when breakages of this sort have been unleashed, the 
> percentile of prepared pkgs has been generally a helluva lot higher- 
> having 90% prepared is one thing, but y'all aren't at that point and 
> you've got 3 weeks (after what, 3 months?) to bring the percentile 
> higher then a third?
> 
> What's the minimal percentile you're aiming for prior to the 
> unmasking?

Python ebuilds will start automatically setting Python 3 as main active
version of Python when all bugs blocking bug #308257 are fixed.

-- 
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item

[Jeremy Olexa]

On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 16:28:29 +0000, Alec Warner <antarus@gentoo.org>
wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 4:08 PM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:

>> As a user, I still think this could turn into a real mess.  I think
there
>> will be quite a few that will see python being updated, run
python-updater
>> and switch it to the new python.  At that point, it is going to hit the
fan.
>>  I know because this is what I always do.  News item or not, when
python
>> gets updated, I run python-updater and make sure it is selected.
> 
> My assumption here is that eselect-python will not let you select v3
> as your python version without some prodding (eg setting stupid
> environment variables or similar.)

Alec, don't assume ;)

 * Messages for package dev-lang/python-3.1.2:

 * 
 * WARNING!
 * Many Python modules haven't been ported yet to Python 3.*.
 * Python 3 hasn't been activated and Python wrapper is still configured
to use Python 2.
 * You can manually activate Python 3.1 using `eselect python set
python3.1`.
 * It is recommended to currently have Python wrapper configured to use
Python 2.
 * Having Python wrapper configured to use Python 3 is unsupported.

%% sudo eselect python set python3.1
%% python --version
Python 3.1.2

-Jeremy

Re: [gentoo-dev] Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item

[Dale]

Alec Warner wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 4:08 PM, Dale<rdalek1967@gmail.com>  wrote:
>    
>> Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
>>      
>>> 2010-03-26 16:40:37 Brian Harring napisał(a):
>>>
>>>        
>>>> There really isn't a precedent since upgrades of this sort typically
>>>> either have extremely locked down deps, or just plain don't happen
>>>> till the vast majority of depndencies are updated.  If in doubt, look
>>>> at the past python upgrades- they've been delayed till all of the
>>>> major consumers played nice w/ the targeted python version.
>>>>
>>>>          
>>> Main active version of Python was automatically updated during previous
>>> Python
>>> upgrades, but it's not updated during installation of Python 3.1.
>>>
>>>
>>>        
>> As a user, I still think this could turn into a real mess.  I think there
>> will be quite a few that will see python being updated, run python-updater
>> and switch it to the new python.  At that point, it is going to hit the fan.
>>   I know because this is what I always do.  News item or not, when python
>> gets updated, I run python-updater and make sure it is selected.
>>      
> My assumption here is that eselect-python will not let you select v3
> as your python version without some prodding (eg setting stupid
> environment variables or similar.)
>    

root@smoker ~ # eselect python list
Available Python interpreters:
   [1]   python2.6 *
   [2]   python3.1
root@smoker ~ # eselect python set 2
root@smoker ~ # eselect python list
Available Python interpreters:
   [1]   python2.6
   [2]   python3.1 *
root@smoker ~ #


That was pretty easy to select the new python.  Everything I did was 
right there.  Two commands and it is switched.  This is where problems 
will start.

>    
>> If this somehow breaks portage, which it shouldn't since apparently portage
>> is fine with the new python, then it is going to really hit the fan.
>>
>> Me, I'm going to make SURE nothing changes on my system.  Then I'm going to
>> sit back and see what happens, good or bad.  I can't imagine anything good
>> but I sure can imagine bad things.
>>      
> Such faith ;)
>
>    
>> Dale
>>
>> :-)  :-)
>>
>>
>>      

It's not faith, its reality.  There will be some people that don't 
subscribe to this list that will do what is above.  This IS the reason I 
subscribed to this list.  I wanted to know what the devs were doing 
under the hood that would lead me to screw up my system.  It's amazing 
how much fewer problems I have had since I started watching this list.

Also, if python3 is marked as "stable," people will assume it is safe to 
switch to.  That's what "stable" means.

Back to my hole.

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-dev] Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item

[George Prowse]

On 26/03/2010 17:43, Dale wrote:
> It's not faith, its reality. There will be some people that don't
> subscribe to this list that will do what is above. This IS the reason I
> subscribed to this list. I wanted to know what the devs were doing under
> the hood that would lead me to screw up my system. It's amazing how much
> fewer problems I have had since I started watching this list.
>
> Also, if python3 is marked as "stable," people will assume it is safe to
> switch to. That's what "stable" means.
>
> Back to my hole.
>
> Dale
>
> :-) :-)
>

It's Gentoo and naturally users are like magpies, they like everything 
newest, highest and shiniest.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item

[Dale]

George Prowse wrote:
> On 26/03/2010 17:43, Dale wrote:
>> It's not faith, its reality. There will be some people that don't
>> subscribe to this list that will do what is above. This IS the reason I
>> subscribed to this list. I wanted to know what the devs were doing under
>> the hood that would lead me to screw up my system. It's amazing how much
>> fewer problems I have had since I started watching this list.
>>
>> Also, if python3 is marked as "stable," people will assume it is safe to
>> switch to. That's what "stable" means.
>>
>> Back to my hole.
>>
>> Dale
>>
>> :-) :-)
>>
>
> It's Gentoo and naturally users are like magpies, they like everything 
> newest, highest and shiniest.
>
>

Yep and they will mess up not realizing what they are doing until it is 
to late.  That's what some of us are worried about, the ones that are 
clueless.

Dale

:-)  :-)

[gentoo-dev] Re: Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item

[Duncan]

George Prowse posted on Fri, 26 Mar 2010 17:53:31 +0000 as excerpted:

> On 26/03/2010 17:43, Dale wrote:
>> It's not faith, its reality. There will be some people that don't
>> subscribe to this list that will do what is above. This IS the reason I
>> subscribed to this list. I wanted to know what the devs were doing
>> under the hood that would lead me to screw up my system. It's amazing
>> how much fewer problems I have had since I started watching this list.
>>
>> Also, if python3 is marked as "stable," people will assume it is safe
>> to switch to. That's what "stable" means.
>>
> It's Gentoo and naturally users are like magpies, they like everything
> newest, highest and shiniest.

Hmm... looking closely, I think it's myself I see in that mirror! =:^)

Pretty apt description, I think, tho I don't suppose it's entirely 
accurate for stale users or they'd find it just that.  I certainly do. 
Take baselayout-2/openrc for instance; /how/ many years stale is 
baselayout-1 now?

-- 
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

[William Hubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1585 bytes --]

On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 05:27:46PM +0000, Jeremy Olexa wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 16:28:29 +0000, Alec Warner <antarus@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 4:08 PM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> >> As a user, I still think this could turn into a real mess. ??I think
> there
> >> will be quite a few that will see python being updated, run
> python-updater
> >> and switch it to the new python. ??At that point, it is going to hit the
> fan.
> >> ??I know because this is what I always do. ??News item or not, when
> python
> >> gets updated, I run python-updater and make sure it is selected.

If you don't bother reading news items or messages from packages, there
is nothing we can do.  I don't feel that this is an excuse for holding
up stabilization.

>  * Messages for package dev-lang/python-3.1.2:
> 
>  * 
>  * WARNING!
>  * Many Python modules haven't been ported yet to Python 3.*.
>  * Python 3 hasn't been activated and Python wrapper is still configured
> to use Python 2.
>  * You can manually activate Python 3.1 using `eselect python set
> python3.1`.
>  * It is recommended to currently have Python wrapper configured to use
> Python 2.
>  * Having Python wrapper configured to use Python 3 is unsupported.
 
The message above looks pretty clear to me.  It works, but don't make it
the default.  Having it marked "stable" and being able to use it as the
default python are two separate things, and the maintainer is making it
very clear in this message that it can't be the default python.

William


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]