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 1R6ScH-0004Aa-Eq for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 21 Sep 2011 19:37:57 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id DCF5521C06F; Wed, 21 Sep 2011 19:37:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from out2.smtp.messagingengine.com (out2.smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.26]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75D3221C06F for ; Wed, 21 Sep 2011 19:37:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.mail.srv.osa [10.202.2.44]) by gateway1.nyi.mail.srv.osa (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35C0C29B4D for ; Wed, 21 Sep 2011 15:37:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from frontend1.nyi.mail.srv.osa ([10.202.2.160]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 21 Sep 2011 15:37:54 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-type:references:subject:to:date :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:from:message-id :in-reply-to; s=smtpout; bh=m9Zia6RQXzmbBZOwZ1zBEPN53cw=; b=X+P8 ns3BW1RhGupp1YYICPpN0COBV9PvY5LtGAJbypAEChXdWyOu/UnHgozNBAFPQ4K5 H0b0jVqu3LVTE2p1NvFfPuW2CMDB8S7u+W9ZuBoyMBzmaomF+W8GWcehG7S9s2CI 1KHuluN25pELmV5HDFrst5tU0ypDDYcT2+UwDmI= X-Sasl-enc: 80fcaki5FcmIo05Kh9Np0RZr4EQNIwPyWXRSzwb+KfB0 1316633873 Received: from gentoobook.trollsnaetverk (unknown [93.170.0.36]) by smtp.myopera.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A31BE740A22 for ; Wed, 21 Sep 2011 15:37:53 -0400 (EDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed; delsp=yes References: Subject: Re: [gentoo-python] Bug 375257: python and >=linux-3 don't play well To: gentoo-python@lists.gentoo.org Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 23:38:26 +0400 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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Sjujsckij Nikolaj" Message-ID: In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Opera Mail/11.51 (Linux) X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: ac99037def15848e0ff81f215dfa8678 Den 2011-09-16 17:51:09 skrev Matthew Summers : > On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 4:14 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: >> I think it would be good to take the upstream patch and apply it to >> our packages. We might even do this for all the old versions. However, >> in the simple case that would mean revbumping 6 slots and requesting >> restabilization, for something excessively tiny (which doesn't cause >> issues for any Python built while running a pre-3.0 kernel). Is there >> a way we can slip this in without revbumping for older versions, >> keeping the stable keywords? Should we consult gentoo-dev about it? >> >> Cheers, >> >> Dirkjan >> >> > > Glad this is fixed upstream and in Gentoo! As far as slipping this > into older, stable packages without a revbump, I strongly urge against > this course of action. Worst case and since its perceived as a pain, > just don't bother with stabilizing the older versions until there is > another release, if ever. > > If you have questions about policy, this seems to be QA related, so > ask one of the team. But when Linux 3.x goes stable, stable Python versions suddenly became "broken". I don't think it's reasonable to have Python 2.4-2.6 in Portage tree keyworded stable (and therefore considered to be supported) and know for sure that it's just a matter of time when somebody have to recompile it and boom! half of Python modules stop working. I daresay these cases should be handled too.