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 1NndAt-0008B3-EQ for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 05 Mar 2010 19:27:03 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 216A4E0EA1; Fri, 5 Mar 2010 19:26:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CADE4E0E84 for ; Fri, 5 Mar 2010 19:26:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C54E1B402F for ; Fri, 5 Mar 2010 19:26:49 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: -2.556 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.556 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=0.043, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zZrOB-GYpoQW for ; Fri, 5 Mar 2010 19:26:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lo.gmane.org (lo.gmane.org [80.91.229.12]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D5251B40B3 for ; Fri, 5 Mar 2010 19:26:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NndAM-0008BK-TP for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Fri, 05 Mar 2010 20:26:30 +0100 Received: from ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net ([68.231.22.224]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 05 Mar 2010 20:26:30 +0100 Received: from 1i5t5.duncan by ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 05 Mar 2010 20:26:30 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org connect(): Connection refused From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2010 19:26:20 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <201003041923.17749.Arfrever@gentoo.org> <20100305021444.768724e6@angelstorm> <201003051209.56096.reavertm@gmail.com> <4B90E9ED.6010102@gentoo.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net User-Agent: Pan/0.133 (House of Butterflies) Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: 8afde9bb-694c-4a3b-9ac0-006d9cdfa2e1 X-Archives-Hash: d3b57dac3a6e9bfe4bd7c69a963a36e3 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 an= y >> other non-leaf package (in dependency tree), just like library. In suc= h >> case it's completely reasonable to stabilize the newest version of suc= h >> 'library', especially when it's slotted and doesn't conflict in any wa= y >> 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. >=20 > It won't be pulled in by sys-apps/portage dependencies which look like > this: >=20 > || ( dev-lang/python:2.8 dev-lang/python:2.7 dev-lang/python:2.6 >>=3Ddev-lang/python-3 ) >=20 > 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=20 says it can use it? I know I use that, so I'm always updated all the way= =20 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=20 time masking it, with an appropriate masking message explaining that it i= s=20 stable, but we're just preventing the majority of folks from pulling it=20 in, since they don't need it yet? That way, those who want/need it can unmask it the usual way, and everyon= e=20 can continue as the were... at least until the first package requiring=20 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=20 warning people that don't think they want or need it to put it in=20 package.mask themselves? That would seem to be about the best compromise= =20 I can see ATM. --=20 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