From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1600813800E for ; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 17:05:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 022C321C004; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 17:05:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEABD21C004 for ; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 17:05:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-wi0-f169.google.com (mail-wi0-f169.google.com [209.85.212.169]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: floppym) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 045BE1B400A for ; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 17:05:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wibhm2 with SMTP id hm2so2618938wib.4 for ; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 10:05:05 -0700 (PDT) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Discussions centering around the Python ecosystem in Gentoo Linux X-BeenThere: gentoo-python@gentoo.org X-BeenThere: gentoo-python@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.4.147 with SMTP id 19mr5693335wej.109.1343667905598; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 10:05:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.223.3.142 with HTTP; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 10:05:05 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <5015EDC2.202@gentoo.org> Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 13:05:05 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-python] Python 3 in Gentoo From: Mike Gilbert To: gentoo-python Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Archives-Salt: 1f5df739-fbf1-4389-b011-e3c5e6970330 X-Archives-Hash: 86e4381141db2fa5edbc609db32d61d7 On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: > On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 5:56 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote: >> Where else in the tree could this concept be applied? > > I think php5 was first handled this way? Maybe apache2? > dev-python/jinja2, for sure. > >> I would prefer to avoid going through the EAPI process if it is just >> going to be used for python. And even then, I'm not really excited >> about the prospect of explaining it. > > Nor am I, really. And may be we should pursue your idea at the same > time. But I think it would sure be nice if we can prevent painting > ourselves into a similar corner a few years down the road. > Ok. I think we will need something a bit more formally defined before we take such a proposal to a wider audience. >> A solution that works within the confines of the current EAPI spec >> should be greatly preferred. > > So do you know how many ebuilds we'd have to update to get it right? > At the moment, no. If someone could help me write a script to identify affected packages, that would be great. If said script uses the portage api to determine the dependency tree, we will want to modify python.eclass first to reduce the number of hits. This could be done in a local copy of the tree.