On 03/18/2010 10:21 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
> On 03/18/2010 09:02 PM, Petteri Räty wrote:
>> On 03/18/2010 09:43 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
>>> So my vote goes for changing the dependency strings for affected packages.
>> Here's some thoughts on the matter:
>> - dev-lang/python is correct if the package works with all python
>> versions in tree
>> - in general we want new slots of packages like gcc being pulled in
>> Here's how we could change Portage behavior for pulling new slots that
>> are not strictly required:
>> - for packages in the world file install as soon as available
>> - for dependencies install the new slot if everything works with the new
>> slot
>> This would mean that Portage would stay with 2.6 as long as you have
>> something that doesn't work with 3.x installed.
>> Regards,
>> Petteri
> How do you detect this?

By looking at the dependency graph?

> Also, what about a new slot for python-2? E.g. 2.7?

Handled by the same rules.

> And do you want to add a special rule to portage just for the special case of 
> python instead of the
> ebuilds/eclasses having the issue?

What issue is there with ebuilds/eclasses? Both should reflect the deps
as well as can be done with current EAPIs. If they don't, they need to
be fixed.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply via email to