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 7291713800E for ; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 15:30:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5674DE0653; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 15:30:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A24BE0653 for ; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 15:30:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-wi0-f175.google.com (mail-wi0-f175.google.com [209.85.212.175]) (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 041A51B400C for ; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 15:30:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wibhm2 with SMTP id hm2so1491953wib.10 for ; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 08:30:05 -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 10.180.86.133 with SMTP id p5mr27398070wiz.17.1343662205522; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 08:30:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.223.3.142 with HTTP; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 08:30:05 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <5015EDC2.202@gentoo.org> Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 11:30:05 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-python] Python 3 in Gentoo From: Mike Gilbert To: gentoo-python Cc: Dirkjan Ochtman Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Archives-Salt: fe7b028b-e942-462d-a093-dfb385b0411e X-Archives-Hash: 15c34e58aac77816e51a80531e0d0c6b On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 11:22 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: > On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 5:19 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote: >> So, another possible alternative here is to scour the tree, replacing >> any dependencies on dev-lang/python with || deps. I believe >> python.eclass would also need to be updated. Does that sound like an >> acceptable solution? > > It sounds pretty messy, but I guess it depends on how many packages > depend on bare dev-lang/python. > > I guess I still think it should be possible to give Portage a hint not > to install a new SLOT if the old SLOT is okay. > In this case, I think we would need something more subtle than that; most users would want a hypothetical python-2.8 to be installed, and python-3 users will certainly want to be upgraded to python-3.3 when that lands. In other words, if we tell portage not to upgrade to a new slot automatically, that means users would have to manually install each major release of python. I think this would be much simpler if we only slotted python on the major version (2 or 3), but I'm sure there are many users who would object to that (myself included).