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 8799F1382F7 for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 01:31:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id EB5C1E0B0A; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 01:31:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ED419E0B04 for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 01:30:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ie0-x22f.google.com (mail-ie0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::22f]) (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 1EF6233EE46 for ; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 01:30:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ie0-f175.google.com with SMTP id aq17so8742422iec.6 for ; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 18:30:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=mjkxom26AjGrDf3Tn4wAWvMioNdh19sLaef1VVPcJis=; b=jZeKW27IM9l2LatRMVdz9/PCh6xHIG94X3PUm3qvNmNuth0o+F3Y1jKL8YJR57v4qU Y6EodwmHUxAort1DPGEJ6KU0dCTnSvRNEjASYkj0zGTcnXocZTPgoTPMbur036MEvqwJ AaF4accm9SL3wbH4rlgHmtjvHnGeqbTXbr1NEhePds0BQOhxM4DEF/grAIjqVbb4oNj/ 8R94SciaTE1dJ0hJcMqUl1EIcGszBlX10ij8AGW2wIVxkj0nsV/waCORWnf1fdj0+fHa UlYXbirOt6r56JzH32IO92yUo0/ju/T8g7WivyC3/LNmoQoy2UmSmGO4rzv8/yk4Wc37 l7rg== Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.43.103.133 with SMTP id di5mr67279icc.38.1382837457277; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 18:30:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.64.139.5 with HTTP; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 18:30:57 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5267CB83.3000306@gentoo.org> References: <5267CB83.3000306@gentoo.org> Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 21:30:57 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] did python-r1 improve user experience? From: Mike Gilbert To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Cc: bkohler@gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Archives-Salt: d13543c2-768e-49a4-8582-0fc7520c834e X-Archives-Hash: d010c4bf4e78d1ccc83d9b99a6303c22 On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 9:13 AM, hasufell wrote: > Since I maintain blender I have come across quite a few frustrated > users already: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=488976#c7 > > I am not sure myself. On one hand we don't need python-updater anymore > and have very tight dependencies that ensure that all needed modules > are always available for the desired implementation. > > On the other hand it seems to give a lot of users trouble with > blockers, general configuration and mass-updates on things like > removing python:2.5. > > What are your opinions? Did it improve user experience? What could be > improved? As one of the lead devs on the python team, here are my thoughts. I think we have made things more "correct". As a developer, it is much easier for me to tell when a package has incomplete or simply broken python dependencies. On the user side, I think we have traded occasional/random build failures due to mismatched python versions for some barely comprehensible portage dependency conflict messages. This is certainly not ideal, but I think it is always better to have portage fail during dependency resolution than at build time. The (non-)relationship between eselect python and PYTHON_TARGETS is something that would be nice to resolve, but I don't know how to do it. PYTHON_SINGLE_TARGET will probably cause problems if/when packages start supporting python3 only.