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 A9F2A13800E for ; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 08:33:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B1EB1E0466; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 08:33:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 827A7E0466 for ; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 08:33:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-wg0-f53.google.com (mail-wg0-f53.google.com [74.125.82.53]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: djc) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BF0641B4005 for ; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 08:33:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wgbfm10 with SMTP id fm10so3677404wgb.10 for ; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 01:33:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.131.196 with SMTP id m46mr5620791wei.35.1343637193326; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 01:33:13 -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 10.216.162.209 with HTTP; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 01:32:50 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <50164471.9080108@gentoo.org> References: <5015EDC2.202@gentoo.org> <50164471.9080108@gentoo.org> From: Dirkjan Ochtman Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 10:32:50 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-python] Python 3 in Gentoo To: Richard Yao Cc: gentoo-python@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Archives-Salt: 908d0b4a-d97a-4a44-a8ad-4fbd1eafaf53 X-Archives-Hash: f2b38e131d3cf7f98583fc14bbfcc508 On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 10:23 AM, Richard Yao wrote: >> I've always thought renaming python-3 to python3 is faux-namespacing, >> and the thing SLOTs are supposed to help out with. Why aren't SLOTs >> helping us with this? > > Portage will attempt to upgrade software to a newer SLOT if it will > satisfy a dependency. This works when you cannot select versions via > eselect, but it causes problems when you can. There is no way to tell it > to prefer the selected version upgrades in other slots unless the > selected version cannot satisfy it. Your last sentence fails to parse for me, perhaps expand one of the "it"s? > I think that having to switch back would cause far less pain than the > current situation would, assuming that we ever do. If the python > developers refuse to make python 2.8, it is likely that someone else will. Please don't hope for a 2.8, it's simply not going to happen. >> I agree that installing both is probably overkill for most users. I >> think the solution is somewhere outside the dev-lang/python package, >> though, in having the system set or portage or whatever the hell it is >> that first pulls in python prefer python-2. > > This would require amending the package manager specification. Well, maybe we should explore that option. It would seem to solve a real problem that doesn't just apply to python. For example, the SLOT value could be prefixed with something to indicate that it should not be selected for upgrades automatically (i.e. other slots should be preferred). Cheers, Dirkjan