From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1OHe9t-0003BO-Pn for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 27 May 2010 14:34:06 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 081FFE0B31; Thu, 27 May 2010 14:34:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tommyserver.de (unknown [85.14.198.50]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76825E0AF6 for ; Thu, 27 May 2010 14:33:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.178.22] (p4FDF2D9C.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [79.223.45.156]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by tommyserver.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DED1BC4243A; Thu, 27 May 2010 16:33:32 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4BFE82C3.2050400@gentoo.org> Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 16:33:39 +0200 From: Thomas Sachau Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org CC: devrel@gentoo.org, arfrever@gentoo.org Subject: [gentoo-dev] Actions of python team, especially Arfrever wrt python eclass and python-3* X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1 OpenPGP: id=211CA2D4 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enigA936708A228DDA26273683A7" X-Archives-Salt: 9b45efff-f963-43cf-8ecf-663dbf73679c X-Archives-Hash: 8cd7ffa14dbe47c6cf0d843afbcdf506 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enigA936708A228DDA26273683A7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi together, since i am not able to get any real argument or even discussion on IRC no= r on this mailing list from Arfrever (main person behind those changes), i would like to raise the fo= llowing points now on this mailing list as told on IRC, so he gets the chance to answer those points= and to clear the issues: -major changes to python eclasses have been done without peer review on t= his mailing list. This includes pulling in python-3* versions, even when they are not required n= or used on the user system Our policy is, that major changes to main eclasses should previously show= n and discussed publically on this mailing list, this did not happen for the python eclass. I think,= he was already told about it, but i still did not see any RFC about those eclass changes. Additionally, those changes now pull in python-3 for every user, also no = package does require python-3 nor will it be used, since the main python version still has to = be python-2. This results in vasted time for additional compilation (both for python-3 and every py= thon module, which is able to work with python-3) and vasted space on the user system, since those f= iles are not used anywhere. Additionally, every additional package raises the security risks since it= raises the amount of code around, also this is nothing python specific. Since python-3 is totally optional, it should be an option to pull it in,= not a forced pull, where users have to know, that is is optional and could be masked. -A news item, which is only shown, once python-3* is installed. It is only shown _after_ installation of python-3. It just suggests to not set python-3 as main python version and to run th= e python-updater, but it does not tell the user, that python-3 is still completly optional and not= needed for him. -Arfrever also said, he would add a seperate news item, when python-3 get= s stabilized. Now the stabilisation bug is open, the first arch is stabilized and i sti= ll dont see any news item, which does prepare the users in advance. Beside those points, one additional main issue is, that i and others dont= seem to be able to have a discussion with Arfrever about this topics. He says, he has no time for i= t or says, that he already had shown arguments, but cannot show any evidence or just stops respondin= g without any note. Even if all those changes would have good reasons for them, the way, how = they are done and communicated is not very well chosen. And since i dont seem to be able to= get any discussion with Arfrever about those points, i will also CC devrel. For now, to inform th= em and, also in the hope, that it is not needed and those issues can be resolved, in preparation fo= r a discussion and decision on those topics, if needed later one. So for Arfrever: I also CCed you, so that i can be sure, that you get the= mail. Please answer to all of my above points with arguments. Choose whatever way you prefer for tha= t (public mail, private mail, public IRC discussion or private message via IRC). If you missed so= me points or others appear, i will answer and ask about those. If you do not answer at all or do not answer with arguments to my satisfa= ction within 14 days, i will escalate those issues to devrel. --=20 Thomas Sachau Gentoo Linux Developer --------------enigA936708A228DDA26273683A7 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.15 (GNU/Linux) iJwEAQEKAAYFAkv+gswACgkQG7kqcTWJkGcbagQAkjT+cRPntUoROlngKH6qFKj5 uP6g+A2LZ93H95lDuG2SGZDm/PxpD9Lvj5rhpH1HXaG9l+6lj3UvTkF5eir0xVU1 BMw13fJ9ZZJumQrwU2TsFE9ngpWrRVI2XHK5FBhunkxzTQG9wal0nHzPo0LRcMcv oPDHBuw1Ss7Q9AzHjPU= =b9Ar -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enigA936708A228DDA26273683A7--