Ben de Groot posted on Thu, 04 Mar 2010 23:56:46 +0100 as excerpted: > Personally I am recommending people to locally mask python-3*. I think > we should consider to add it to our package.mask, unless we can find > some other solution. > > I am not against it being marked stable, but I am against having it > pulled in on systems that don't need it.
++ I've package masked python3 here. There are some things I like being leading, even bleeding edge on. Python isn't one of them. When some package I want to merge wants python-3 and isn't going to take python-2 (or if I decide I want to learn python, since one might as well learn 3 at this point if they're learning), /then/ I'll consider unmasking it. Until then, or at least for quite some time yet if that doesn't happen, there's no reason I need the additional complications of python-3 problems on my system. I'd say the same goes for most users. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
