On 6/4/24 3:37 PM, Joost Roeleveld wrote: > >> On 6/4/24 11:40 AM, Joost Roeleveld wrote: >>> Those steps do not just work. >>> The news item actually specifically states that portage will "just do >>> the update" if you have not set any python_targets stuff. >>> I have those not set, but it fails on ALL my systems. >> >> >> Certainly it did NOT say that. >> >> The news item said portage would try, and indeed it did try. > > And failed miserably. > I run STABLE to avoid random build failures due to library compatibility > issues like this. > The devs pushed a change that caused 280+ packages (Check BGO if you > don't believe me) to simply not be compatible anymore.
Note that it's not a build failure -- it is an upgrade calculation failure. It fails before upgrading any packages since it knows it can't resolve the dependencies. >> You can criticize the resulting failure without claiming the news item >> was untruthful. Thanks. > > The newsitem is 100% USELESS. The devs should NOT push this through with > this MANY packages failing to even WORK The purpose of the news item was to warn users that the event would occur. Did it not achieve its purpose? Were you not-warned? Do we at least agree that the news item was truthful? >> Can you please tone down your complaints? Talking about how it has been >> "forced" is both overly dramatic, and pointlessly dramatic. > > WHY? > The devs FORCED a change through which caused ALL systems to FAIL > regular maintenance. This is provably false, since at least one system -- mine -- succeeded just fine. I rebuilt several hundred packages (or synced a lot of them from the binhost but same difference) for this upgrade, and all of them worked. More generally, it works depending on whether or not your system happens to use any of the packages that are slow to support 3.12. And it still isn't a forced anything, because... >> Nothing has been forced. The defaults switched, but individuals are >> perfectly capable of delaying the switch and indeed the news item gives >> instructions for the event that you wish to delay it. > > WHY would I want to delay something? I do NOT care about python versions. > I DO care about being able to keep my systems updated. > When these FAIL even when I am using stable, I investigate. > When I then notice it is caused by a shortsighted decision of the devs > to force this change to all users WITHOUT ensuring packages that HAVE > been converted to 3.12 have been stabilised, the devs are clearly > showing they do NOT care about their users. > >> Please criticize the defaults, without accusations of "force". > > If defaults change, this is force. So your answer is that it counts as forcing because you respect defaults, but don't respect the developers, and you think it is shortsighted and lacking respect for users to change defaults and... I guess therefore you refuse to vindicate the devs by accepting that a possible solution is to delay the change? Sorry but no, keeping your system updated regardless of linux distro means following urgent notices provided by the developers. On Gentoo, that's the news system. The existence of a news system that tells you whether you need to pay attention to something specific when performing system updates/maintenance, intrinsically means that you have to care about whatever the news system tells you to pay attention to. Which in this case is "python versions". I'm sorry to hear your experience has been disappointing. But this doesn't give you the right to claim that it has been forced on you. You were given advance warning weeks ago that this was upcoming, so you could plan your maintenance around it. You were given instructions on how to opt out of the change. The instructions work -- you can follow them and as a result not deal with any python 3.12 upgrade at all. Gentoo provides you the tools to control your system with this specificity. You have the option to avoid this change -- everything will continue to work flawlessly with python 3.11. This is the very definition of not being forced. You may look far and wide, but you won't find agreement that "if defaults change, this is force". -- Eli Schwartz
OpenPGP_0x84818A6819AF4A9B.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
