Re: [gentoo-python] Python 3 in Gentoo

[Richard Yao <ryao@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2207 bytes --]

On 07/29/2012 10:13 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> This past weekend, the topic of the current state of Python 3 in Gentoo
> was raised once again in the #gentoo-dev IRC channel. Here's where we
> currently stand:
> 
> 1. Python 3.2 is installed by default on major arches due to its
> presence in the stage3 tarball.
> 
> 2. Python 2 is NOT installed by default as nothing in the system set
> actually depends on it.
> 
> 3. In most cases, users end up building and installing Python 2.7 as a
> dependency of some other package once they have their system set up.
> Users end up having two versions of Python installed.
> 
> This third point is the cause of some annoyance for several (many?)
> developers and users. In most cases, there really is no reason for a
> user to have two versions of Python installed; it is simply a redundant
> set of code. However, if you attempt to remove Python 3, portage will
> just pull it back on the next world upgrade unless you mask it.
> 
> I don't think this makes for a very good user experience. So, how can we
> change that?
> 
> As I see it, we need a way to avoid portage's overly optimistic upgrade
> mechanic. One way to do that is to drop the stable keywords on Python 3,
> but I feel that is dishonest; Python 3 itself is perfectly stable, so we
> should not force users to unmask it.
> 
> The other way that occurs to me (and others) is to rename
> dev-lang/python-3* to dev-lang/python3, treating it as an entirely
> separate package. I believe this has been proposed in the past, and I'm
> honestly not sure why it never gained traction. It would take some work,
> but we have already had a couple of non-python devs volunteer to help out.
> 
> We can work out the technical details in follow-up discussion.
> 
> Is anyone in favor or opposed to this package rename idea? Are there any
> better ideas?
> 

I have already setup a github repository we could use to make the
appropriate changes to the tree at our leisure:

https://github.com/gentoo/portage-devel

Then it should be possible to do this change with minimal disruption
once we are happy with what we have there.

Also, I am willing to help. :)


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