On 10/22/20 1:43 AM, Pierre Labastie via blfs-dev wrote:
On Thu, 2020-10-22 at 00:56 -0500, DJ Lucas via blfs-dev wrote:
On October 21, 2020 10:48:39 PM CDT, Bruce Dubbs via blfs-dev <
blfs-dev@lists.linuxfromscratch.org> wrote:
On 10/21/20 10:06 PM, DJ Lucas via blfs-dev wrote:
In LFS, we can make the symlink to p3. For p2 in BLFS, we will
use
'make altinstall'. Everything else would be for non-python
packages
that either use p2 or create a p2 module.
Ok, I'll go back and fix it that way locally then. I'm not too far. I
have only like 8 packages that have py2 optional deps listed.
So for BLFS, just do it and fix on the fly, or create a tracker bug
and let the devs run through it a time or two? I don't think it's
going to be all that big of a deal, but might be nice to avoid any
interim breakage, do as one big commit or a small series of commits
to make it easier on people who are upgrading.
I think we have another problem besides gimp, which is lxde as it is in
the book presently. Lxde with GTK+-2 wants pygtk, which is P2 only. I
have changes in one of my sandboxes for moving LXDE to GTK+-3 (removing
the need for P2), but there is one bug for which there is no patch
available (in lxappearance-obconf, see
https://sourceforge.net/p/lxde/bugs/768/). Upstream has done nothing
about that bug, as with other bugs about GTK+-3, but for the other
bugs, there are patches. So I have not put that into the book yet. If
that bug is not considered a blocker, we could do the move.
I do consider that one a blocker since you cannot see the preview for
the window border before you apply it. That has to do specifically with
LXDE + Openbox of course, not with LXAppearance in other desktop
environments.
Another possibility is to remove LXDE and move to LXQt. But it would
require some changes to the book to add a "Qt5-base" page, with only
the relevant parts of Qt5 needed, and same for KF5. It would be silly
to build full Qt5 and kf5 for a "lightweight" package. I am thinking
about that with a way to not add too much maintenance burden.
I'd prefer this route solely based on the fact that LxQT is actively
maintained. LXDE being unmaintained in it's current state leaves it
susceptible to bit-rot, while also increasing the chance for security
issues.
- Doug
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
