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 <gentoo-dev+bounces-39798-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>)
id 1NnUgF-0000Tx-3z
for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 05 Mar 2010 10:22:51 +0000
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E27C8E0DF2;
Fri, 5 Mar 2010 10:22:48 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C060EE0C72
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Fri, 5 Mar 2010 10:22:40 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-ww0-f53.google.com (mail-ww0-f53.google.com [74.125.82.53])
(using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CC381B40D4
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Fri, 5 Mar 2010 10:22:40 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by wwi18 with SMTP id 18so2076246wwi.40
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Fri, 05 Mar 2010 02:22:38 -0800 (PST)
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.216.85.143 with SMTP id u15mr483079wee.205.1267784558218; Fri,
05 Mar 2010 02:22:38 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20100305021444.768724e6@angelstorm>
References: <201003041923.17749.Arfrever@gentoo.org> <20100305002545.499ac845@angelstorm>
<ea2499da1003050110o753382d4if3a4be90723cf39c@mail.gmail.com>
<20100305014122.1f616392@angelstorm> <ea2499da1003050156y24b52aap9674932a131eafde@mail.gmail.com>
<20100305021444.768724e6@angelstorm>
From: Dirkjan Ochtman <djc@gentoo.org>
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 11:22:18 +0100
Message-ID: <ea2499da1003050222y3ab9dd1dx30f14fb3ba9621a1@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Archives-Salt: 79202c1d-992a-413b-9533-6071f6515ea2
X-Archives-Hash: 2e6bda7d081bf54bb0e749b546926542
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 wh=
at I'm sayin'. Maybe if I ran ~arch they'd ask for Python 3.x, but I run st=
able, 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 rushin=
g 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. . . unles=
s folks start getting crafty with pseudo version ranges, as Zac mentioned.
I guess we'll have to do that then.
Cheers,
Dirkjan