* [gentoo-python] Bug 375257: python and >=linux-3 don't play well
@ 2011-09-16 9:14 Dirkjan Ochtman
2011-09-16 13:51 ` Matthew Summers
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Dirkjan Ochtman @ 2011-09-16 9:14 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-python
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-python] Bug 375257: python and >=linux-3 don't play well
2011-09-16 9:14 [gentoo-python] Bug 375257: python and >=linux-3 don't play well Dirkjan Ochtman
@ 2011-09-16 13:51 ` Matthew Summers
2011-09-21 19:38 ` Sjujsckij Nikolaj
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Matthew Summers @ 2011-09-16 13:51 UTC (permalink / raw
To: Dirkjan Ochtman; +Cc: gentoo-python
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 4:14 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman <djc@gentoo.org> 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.
Thanks!
Matt
--
Matthew W. Summers
Gentoo Foundation Inc.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-python] Bug 375257: python and >=linux-3 don't play well
2011-09-16 13:51 ` Matthew Summers
@ 2011-09-21 19:38 ` Sjujsckij Nikolaj
2011-09-22 9:10 ` Dirkjan Ochtman
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Sjujsckij Nikolaj @ 2011-09-21 19:38 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-python
Den 2011-09-16 17:51:09 skrev Matthew Summers <quantumsummers@gentoo.org>:
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 4:14 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman <djc@gentoo.org> 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.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-python] Bug 375257: python and >=linux-3 don't play well
2011-09-21 19:38 ` Sjujsckij Nikolaj
@ 2011-09-22 9:10 ` Dirkjan Ochtman
2011-09-22 9:21 ` Sjujskij Nikolaj
2011-09-22 9:24 ` Michał Górny
0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Dirkjan Ochtman @ 2011-09-22 9:10 UTC (permalink / raw
To: Sjujsckij Nikolaj; +Cc: gentoo-python
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 21:38, Sjujsckij Nikolaj <sterkrig@myopera.com> wrote:
> But when Linux 3.x goes stable, stable Python versions suddenly became
> "broken".
Well, only versions of Python built *after* you start using the new kernel.
> 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.
Well, I wouldn't say half of Python modules, but I agree that we
should probably revbump the others, too.
Cheers,
Dirkjan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-python] Bug 375257: python and >=linux-3 don't play well
2011-09-22 9:10 ` Dirkjan Ochtman
@ 2011-09-22 9:21 ` Sjujskij Nikolaj
2011-09-22 9:24 ` Michał Górny
1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Sjujskij Nikolaj @ 2011-09-22 9:21 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-python
Den 2011-09-22 13:10:13 skrev Dirkjan Ochtman <djc@gentoo.org>:
>> But when Linux 3.x goes stable, stable Python versions suddenly became
>> "broken".
> Well, only versions of Python built *after* you start using the new
> kernel.
Sure, but regular updates sometimes require rebuilding Python.
For example, if dev-libs/libffi-3.0.10 goes stable *after* kernel 3.x, all
Python interpreters installed will be "revdep-rebuilt" /
"@preserved-rebuilt"
and lo! Pythons < 2.7 report 'linux3'.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-python] Bug 375257: python and >=linux-3 don't play well
2011-09-22 9:10 ` Dirkjan Ochtman
2011-09-22 9:21 ` Sjujskij Nikolaj
@ 2011-09-22 9:24 ` Michał Górny
1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Michał Górny @ 2011-09-22 9:24 UTC (permalink / raw
To: Dirkjan Ochtman; +Cc: Sjujsckij Nikolaj, gentoo-python
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 641 bytes --]
On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 11:10:13 +0200
Dirkjan Ochtman <djc@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Well, I wouldn't say half of Python modules, but I agree that we
> should probably revbump the others, too.
Don't forget to apply distutils patches for 3.* as well :P.
/me hides.
--
Best regards,
Michał Górny
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 316 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2011-09-22 9:22 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2011-09-16 9:14 [gentoo-python] Bug 375257: python and >=linux-3 don't play well Dirkjan Ochtman
2011-09-16 13:51 ` Matthew Summers
2011-09-21 19:38 ` Sjujsckij Nikolaj
2011-09-22 9:10 ` Dirkjan Ochtman
2011-09-22 9:21 ` Sjujskij Nikolaj
2011-09-22 9:24 ` Michał Górny
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox