Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Stabilization of Python 3.1
> > Someone here want people install paludis? because when I've switched to > python 3.0 just out of curiosity, it broke totally that python written > package manager who is portage. > So another package manager was needed to re-install a sane portage. No it wasn't. [1] You just didn't know that ( which is completely understandable ). Just as you must not have understood the implications of emerge -C python:2.6. I don't want to be mean but would you like to enlighten us as to how you managed to unemerge python:2.6 while using python3 when portage didn't work with python3. [1] http://tinderbox.dev.gentoo.org/default-linux/amd64/dev-lang/python-2.6.2- r1.tbz2 > > Still, do you really want to have it in tree as stable? Really? Yes really.
[gentoo-dev] EAPI and system packages
(Yes, this has EAPI in the title, so that means everyone will chime in) I'd like to clarify and (eventually) set in stone our ideas of best practices when it comes to bumping EAPI for system packages. I was of the belief that we had decided that system packages should remain at EAPI 0 for backwards-compatibility reasons. It seems, however, that this was never written down anywhere and today we find ourselves in a situation where it is impossible to bootstrap a Gentoo system from a pre-EAPI-era liveCD due to all python versions being EAPI 1 or later. Maybe we don't care anymore, but I'd like to know what people think. system packages* w/ EAPI != 0 app-shells/bash (EAPI 0 versions available) dev-lang/python (all versions) sys-apps/grep (EAPI 0 versions available) sys-apps/util-linux (EAPI 0 versions available) sys-fs/udev (EAPI 0 versions available) sys-libs/ncurses (EAPI 0 versions available) *(the list of system packages was determined by running emerge -ep --nodeps @system. your concept of system packages may vary.) also e2fsprogs-libs is exclusively EAPI 2, but there remains in the tree a e2fsprogs ebuild from before the split that is EAPI 0. So, should we always keep a working EAPI 0 version around? If not, when can we drop support for old EAPIs? Your opinions please. -- fonts, Character is what you are in the dark. gcc-porting, wxwidgets @ gentoo EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Stabilization of Python 3.1
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 1:31 AM, Ryan Hill wrote: > On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 08:55:00 +1200 > Alistair Bush wrote: > > > > Stabilization of Python 3.1.* will be requested at the beginning of > > > november. There was a suggestion to create a news item which would > inform > > > users that temporarily they shouldn't switch to Python 3 as their main > > > interpreter. Python ebuilds don't automatically activate Python 3, so > I'm > > > not sure if the news item is required. What is your opinion about it? > > > > > > > Stablise. > > > > And to pacify all the cry babies out there could we update portage tools > to > > call /usr/bin/python2.6 directly? (yes I realise this will break, but at > least > > it is a suggestion) Or how about we (remove python3.1 from the > menu)/(stick > > a big fat warning message)/(do something else) on eselect-python. Or > create a > > "system-python" link that all gentoo core apps use instead of > /usr/bin/python > > (longer term solution?). [rant]Hell maybe we could even start using > those > > slot dep thingy me bobbies to depend only a slot. So ppl don't have > python3.1 > > unless something depends on it. Does portage have support for slots in > world? > > [/rant] > > Or we could, say, leave it ~arch. > > Why do you need python-3 in stable? > > Someone here want people install paludis? because when I've switched to python 3.0 just out of curiosity, it broke totally that python written package manager who is portage. So another package manager was needed to re-install a sane portage. Still, do you really want to have it in tree as stable? Really? Than at least please update eselect python in such a way it could not in any case be used to choose a python version >= 3
[gentoo-dev] Re: Stabilization of Python 3.1
On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 08:55:00 +1200 Alistair Bush wrote: > > Stabilization of Python 3.1.* will be requested at the beginning of > > november. There was a suggestion to create a news item which would inform > > users that temporarily they shouldn't switch to Python 3 as their main > > interpreter. Python ebuilds don't automatically activate Python 3, so I'm > > not sure if the news item is required. What is your opinion about it? > > > > Stablise. > > And to pacify all the cry babies out there could we update portage tools to > call /usr/bin/python2.6 directly? (yes I realise this will break, but at > least > it is a suggestion) Or how about we (remove python3.1 from the menu)/(stick > a big fat warning message)/(do something else) on eselect-python. Or create > a > "system-python" link that all gentoo core apps use instead of /usr/bin/python > (longer term solution?). [rant]Hell maybe we could even start using those > slot dep thingy me bobbies to depend only a slot. So ppl don't have python3.1 > unless something depends on it. Does portage have support for slots in world? > [/rant] Or we could, say, leave it ~arch. Why do you need python-3 in stable? -- fonts, Character is what you are in the dark. gcc-porting, wxwidgets @ gentoo EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Stabilization of Python 3.1
*On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 23:21, Robert Bridge wrote: > So the question isn't SHOULD python-3 be stabilised, it's what will break if > it is surely? There seems to be a misunderstanding on what will happen if/when python 3 gets stabilized. The short answer is... *drum roll*... nothing :) I'm guessing that the idea of getting python 3 stable is to allow people interested in using it to do so easily. We're talking about the stabilization of python 3, NOT switching portage or your system to it. Python 2.6 will continue to be the user's default python even after he installs version 3. In fact, if you're using ~testing you should have it already and your system is probably still working OK :) Now.. if a user decides to switch his system *manually* to python 3 without thinking... he's asking for it :) -- Alex || wired Gentoo Dev www.linuxized.com
[gentoo-dev] Re: Stabilization of Python 3.1
AllenJB allenjb.me.uk> writes: > > As a user who has spent a lot of time on IRC and the forums supporting > other users, I think I can safely say that stabilizing a version of > python which is not supported by portage will end up in a nightmare > scenario. At the very least portage, python-updater and eselect, if not > the majority of the commonly used tools (whichever of gentoolkit, > portage-utils, eix, etc use python), should support python 3.1 before it > goes stable. 1) All those tools (eselect, python-wrapper, python-updater) are written in other languages specifically to ensure a means to update python 2) There has existed for a very long time patches to portage to make it compatible with python3.x Stabilizing Python3.x isn't really an issue as long as some means to ensure people do not emerge -c a python2.x version (eg adding it to the system profile)
Re: [gentoo-dev] Stabilization of Python 3.1
On Sunday 20 of September 2009 00:32:28 Dale wrote: > > > > ~arch is for testing ebuilds, not the upstream package > > So it would be OK to mark something "stable" even tho portage itself > doesn't work with it? Sorry, this makes no sense to me. I run stable > for the most part and having a package that portage depends on that is > not stable just sounds a little like putting the cart before the horse. > > See some of the other replies as to why this is a not so good idea. > > Dale > > :-) :-) You mix it up. Portage works with python 3.1. If an user switches to python 3.1 as the main interpreter, it's possible that his own scripts won't work. Marking it stable sometine in november give's some time to ebuilds maintainers to fix their python based apps just like it's done with gcc stabilization. So marking python 3.1 stable and telling users "port your own apps/scripts to current python" sounds good to me.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Stabilization of Python 3.1
Olivier Crête wrote: > On Sat, 2009-09-19 at 12:21 -0500, Dale wrote: > >> Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: >> >>> On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 19:06, Alex Legler wrote: >>> >>> What is the point of stabilizing it if users shouldn't use it as main interpreter? Just leave it in ~arch until it can be safely used. >>> Making it easily available so that people can port stuff, so that the >>> entire world may be able to use it as their main interpreter sooner? >>> >>> Seriously, it's out there, there's no reason to keep it from stable. >>> Just prevent people from making python invoke 3.x and everything will >>> be fine. >>> >> Isn't ~arch supposed to be for testing? Isn't that the point of having >> ~arch? >> > > ~arch is for testing ebuilds, not the upstream package > > So it would be OK to mark something "stable" even tho portage itself doesn't work with it? Sorry, this makes no sense to me. I run stable for the most part and having a package that portage depends on that is not stable just sounds a little like putting the cart before the horse. See some of the other replies as to why this is a not so good idea. Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-dev] Stabilization of Python 3.1
> Stabilization of Python 3.1.* will be requested at the beginning of > november. There was a suggestion to create a news item which would inform > users that temporarily they shouldn't switch to Python 3 as their main > interpreter. Python ebuilds don't automatically activate Python 3, so I'm > not sure if the news item is required. What is your opinion about it? > Stablise. And to pacify all the cry babies out there could we update portage tools to call /usr/bin/python2.6 directly? (yes I realise this will break, but at least it is a suggestion) Or how about we (remove python3.1 from the menu)/(stick a big fat warning message)/(do something else) on eselect-python. Or create a "system-python" link that all gentoo core apps use instead of /usr/bin/python (longer term solution?). [rant]Hell maybe we could even start using those slot dep thingy me bobbies to depend only a slot. So ppl don't have python3.1 unless something depends on it. Does portage have support for slots in world? [/rant] Solutions ppl. Thats is what we need. Not "oh poor woe is me". Alistair.
[gentoo-dev] Re: Stabilization of Python 3.1
On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 15:35:08 -0400 Mark Loeser wrote: > Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis said: > > Stabilization of Python 3.1.* will be requested at the beginning of > > november. > > There was a suggestion to create a news item which would inform users that > > temporarily they shouldn't switch to Python 3 as their main interpreter. > > Python ebuilds don't automatically activate Python 3, so I'm not sure if > > the news item is required. What is your opinion about it? > > Please don't do this. The stable system is meant to "Just Work". We > don't need people switching between python versions and making half of > their system unusuable. There is absolutely no benefit to moving it to > stable. I have to agree. It gains us nothing and creates an opportunity for disaster. Anyone wanting python-3.1 has the ability to unmask it. -- fonts, Character is what you are in the dark. gcc-porting, wxwidgets @ gentoo EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Stabilization of Python 3.1
Speaking as a user, I seem to recall having multiple versions of python installed in the past, and never really knowing or caring which version was being used so long as stuff worked. If you want to install python-3.14159 in the stable tree, than go right ahead, so long as anything that doesn't work with python-3 can still access python-2 and does so without me knowing, it doesn't matter. So the question isn't SHOULD python-3 be stabilised, it's what will break if it is surely?
Re: [gentoo-dev] Stabilization of Python 3.1
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote: > 2009-09-19 20:20:10 AllenJB napisał(a): >> Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: >>> On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 19:06, Alex Legler wrote: What is the point of stabilizing it if users shouldn't use it as main interpreter? Just leave it in ~arch until it can be safely used. >>> Making it easily available so that people can port stuff, so that the >>> entire world may be able to use it as their main interpreter sooner? >>> >>> Seriously, it's out there, there's no reason to keep it from stable. >>> Just prevent people from making python invoke 3.x and everything will >>> be fine. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Dirkjan >>> >> Yes, there is a very good reason: The sanity of the users and those who >> support them. >> >> As a user who has spent a lot of time on IRC and the forums supporting >> other users, I think I can safely say that stabilizing a version of >> python which is not supported by portage will end up in a nightmare >> scenario. At the very least portage, python-updater and eselect, if not >> the majority of the commonly used tools (whichever of gentoolkit, >> portage-utils, eix, etc use python), should support python 3.1 before it >> goes stable. > > python-updater and eselect are written in bash. portage-utils are written > in C. eix is written in C++. > >> perhaps add a block to eselect so that python-3.1 can't be selected as >> the system python interpreter until portage supports it. > > Users might want to sometimes temporarily switch to Python 3 to test some > Portage-unrelated code. > Anyway Portage will support Python 3 soon. > The users who test code usually have the skills to unmask the things they need. Stabling 3.x should bring benefit to people who don't write anything in python because it will be upgraded for all users. If we don't make 3.x part of system then we can talk about stabilizing it. Regards, Petteri signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Stabilization of Python 3.1
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 12:23 AM, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote: >> Have any other distribution moved to purely using python-3.1? > > We won't move to purely using Python 3.1. Both Python 2 and 3 will be used. > Let me modify me question: Has any other distribution moved to using python-3 by default? Because that is what will happen when you stabilize python-3.1. You will move to it by default. Everyone who installs Gentoo will get python-3.1. Everyone who has 2.6 will get 3.1 -- unless they take action to prevent that. That is the _definition_ of default. For the normal user, no amount of documentation. I repeated BLOODY *NO* amount of documentation will change the fact that the default is "broken system" for a stable install. Whoever suggested that python-3.1 should go stable immediately needs his head examined. Nirbheek, Extremely Pissed Off At This Idiocy. -- ~Nirbheek Chauhan GNOME+Mozilla Team, Gentoo
Re: [gentoo-dev] Stabilization of Python 3.1
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis said: > Stabilization of Python 3.1.* will be requested at the beginning of november. > There was a suggestion to create a news item which would inform users that > temporarily they shouldn't switch to Python 3 as their main interpreter. > Python ebuilds don't automatically activate Python 3, so I'm not sure if > the news item is required. What is your opinion about it? Please don't do this. The stable system is meant to "Just Work". We don't need people switching between python versions and making half of their system unusuable. There is absolutely no benefit to moving it to stable. -- Mark Loeser email - halcy0n AT gentoo DOT org email - mark AT halcy0n DOT com web - http://www.halcy0n.com pgpBOqjpyzWlZ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Stabilization of Python 3.1
2009-09-19 20:20:10 AllenJB napisał(a): > Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 19:06, Alex Legler wrote: > >> What is the point of stabilizing it if users shouldn't use it as main > >> interpreter? Just leave it in ~arch until it can be safely used. > > > > Making it easily available so that people can port stuff, so that the > > entire world may be able to use it as their main interpreter sooner? > > > > Seriously, it's out there, there's no reason to keep it from stable. > > Just prevent people from making python invoke 3.x and everything will > > be fine. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Dirkjan > > > > Yes, there is a very good reason: The sanity of the users and those who > support them. > > As a user who has spent a lot of time on IRC and the forums supporting > other users, I think I can safely say that stabilizing a version of > python which is not supported by portage will end up in a nightmare > scenario. At the very least portage, python-updater and eselect, if not > the majority of the commonly used tools (whichever of gentoolkit, > portage-utils, eix, etc use python), should support python 3.1 before it > goes stable. python-updater and eselect are written in bash. portage-utils are written in C. eix is written in C++. > perhaps add a block to eselect so that python-3.1 can't be selected as > the system python interpreter until portage supports it. Users might want to sometimes temporarily switch to Python 3 to test some Portage-unrelated code. Anyway Portage will support Python 3 soon. -- Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Stabilization of Python 3.1
2009-09-19 20:45:45 Nirbheek Chauhan napisał(a): > On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 10:18 PM, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis > wrote: > > Stabilization of Python 3.1.* will be requested at the beginning of > > november. > > There was a suggestion to create a news item which would inform users that > > temporarily they shouldn't switch to Python 3 as their main interpreter. > > Python ebuilds don't automatically activate Python 3, so I'm not sure if > > the news item is required. What is your opinion about it? > > > > Have any other distribution moved to purely using python-3.1? We won't move to purely using Python 3.1. Both Python 2 and 3 will be used. -- Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Stabilization of Python 3.1
2009-09-19 20:22:49 Tobias Klausmann napisał(a): > Hi! > > Aside from the remarks made by others (and speaking as someone > who maintains Python software), there is one reason for me to not > switch Python 3 to stable yet: lack of compatibility. Software > that runs with 3.x will not run with any 2.x version as of today It's possible (and not too hard) to write code which works with Python 3 and 2.6. It might be also possible to support older versions, but it would require many ugly exec() calls etc. -- Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Stabilization of Python 3.1
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 10:18 PM, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote: > Stabilization of Python 3.1.* will be requested at the beginning of november. > There was a suggestion to create a news item which would inform users that > temporarily they shouldn't switch to Python 3 as their main interpreter. > Python ebuilds don't automatically activate Python 3, so I'm not sure if > the news item is required. What is your opinion about it? > Have any other distribution moved to purely using python-3.1? The reason is pretty simple: Not everything has been ported to use 3.1 yet. Hell, I personally have 3.1 under a local p.mask so I don't have to bother with breakage due to it. (existing packages as well as scripts/projects I have). I do believe it will be very counter-productive to move it to stable at this point. -- ~Nirbheek Chauhan GNOME+Mozilla Team, Gentoo
Re: [gentoo-dev] Stabilization of Python 3.1
Alex Legler wrote: > On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 19:09:38 +0200, Dirkjan Ochtman > wrote: > >> Seriously, it's out there, there's no reason to keep it from stable. >> Just prevent people from making python invoke 3.x and everything will >> be fine. >> > > Yeah, right, let's install it on all those stable machines, but then > not use it. > > Way to go! > Alex Surely this isn't an issue: If the dependencies on packages are correct, surely this shouldn't happen? If the dependencies aren't correct, maybe checking and correcting them for every package that needs python should be a requirement for stabilization. AllenJB
Re: [gentoo-dev] Stabilization of Python 3.1
Hi! Aside from the remarks made by others (and speaking as someone who maintains Python software), there is one reason for me to not switch Python 3 to stable yet: lack of compatibility. Software that runs with 3.x will not run with any 2.x version as of today (and I doubt there will ever be a 2.x version of Python that can run 3.x code). As such, upstream devs will have to maintain two branches of software for a rather long time. Thing is, some projects just don't have the manpower to maintain two branches, so they will stay with 2.x versions for now. Yes, it's a catch-22, but I doubt that a sufficiently large portion of projects will have a 3.x-compatible branch/version this year (sufficient meaning over 95%). On the other hand, we can patch everything that doesn't run with 3.x (i.e. "fixing" the shebang lines and maybe assorted paths). The Python team is more suited to evaluate the feasibility of that. Regards, Tobias PS: As an illustration: just look at how long it took to get a 2.6-compatible version of mailman into the tree...
Re: [gentoo-dev] Stabilization of Python 3.1
Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: > On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 19:06, Alex Legler wrote: >> What is the point of stabilizing it if users shouldn't use it as main >> interpreter? Just leave it in ~arch until it can be safely used. > > Making it easily available so that people can port stuff, so that the > entire world may be able to use it as their main interpreter sooner? > > Seriously, it's out there, there's no reason to keep it from stable. > Just prevent people from making python invoke 3.x and everything will > be fine. > > Cheers, > > Dirkjan > Yes, there is a very good reason: The sanity of the users and those who support them. As a user who has spent a lot of time on IRC and the forums supporting other users, I think I can safely say that stabilizing a version of python which is not supported by portage will end up in a nightmare scenario. At the very least portage, python-updater and eselect, if not the majority of the commonly used tools (whichever of gentoolkit, portage-utils, eix, etc use python), should support python 3.1 before it goes stable. Everything would be fine if all the users read news items, forums, mailing lists and web pages - but they don't. It will get missed by many many users - too many for something that breaks portage, in my opinion. I would suggest the developers keep python 3.1 out of stable until it is supported by portage, puthon-updater and eselect at minimum (ie. you can easily revert to 2.6). While writing this an alternative solution has occurred to me: Make sure portage dependencies are correct so that python doesn't get dep-cleaned (a brief check of the portage 2.1.6.7 ebuild makes it look like this currently isn't the case - surely this should've been done as soon as it was known portage didn't support python 3!) and perhaps add a block to eselect so that python-3.1 can't be selected as the system python interpreter until portage supports it. AllenJB
[gentoo-dev] Re: Stabilization of Python 3.1
On 09/19/2009 08:21 PM, Dale wrote: Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 19:06, Alex Legler wrote: What is the point of stabilizing it if users shouldn't use it as main interpreter? Just leave it in ~arch until it can be safely used. Making it easily available so that people can port stuff, so that the entire world may be able to use it as their main interpreter sooner? Seriously, it's out there, there's no reason to keep it from stable. Just prevent people from making python invoke 3.x and everything will be fine. Cheers, Dirkjan Isn't ~arch supposed to be for testing? Isn't that the point of having ~arch? For testing, yes. But what about people who want to use it? Not for portage, not as main interpreter, but simply "use it." Python is a programming language and has many uses, it's not only there to make portage happy. There are people who actually use it, and those people would like it stabilized. Just because portage isn't ported to 3.x yet shouldn't mean it can't go stable if there are no blockers about 3.x itself.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Stabilization of Python 3.1
On Sat, 2009-09-19 at 12:21 -0500, Dale wrote: > Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 19:06, Alex Legler wrote: > > > >> What is the point of stabilizing it if users shouldn't use it as main > >> interpreter? Just leave it in ~arch until it can be safely used. > >> > > > > Making it easily available so that people can port stuff, so that the > > entire world may be able to use it as their main interpreter sooner? > > > > Seriously, it's out there, there's no reason to keep it from stable. > > Just prevent people from making python invoke 3.x and everything will > > be fine. > > Isn't ~arch supposed to be for testing? Isn't that the point of having > ~arch? ~arch is for testing ebuilds, not the upstream package -- Olivier Crête tes...@gentoo.org Gentoo Developer signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Stabilization of Python 3.1
On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 19:09:38 +0200, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: > On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 19:06, Alex Legler wrote: > > What is the point of stabilizing it if users shouldn't use it as > > main interpreter? Just leave it in ~arch until it can be safely > > used. > > Making it easily available so that people can port stuff, so that the > entire world may be able to use it as their main interpreter sooner? > Don't you think that ~arch makes it easily available enough for people who *want* to port stuff? If I run stable Gentoo, I'm interested in a /stable/ system(tm) and not the latest Python version that people are still fiddling with. Especially since the Gentoo core system extensively uses Python. By the way, does Portage work with Python 3 yet? > Seriously, it's out there, there's no reason to keep it from stable. > Just prevent people from making python invoke 3.x and everything will > be fine. > Yeah, right, let's install it on all those stable machines, but then not use it. Way to go! Alex signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Stabilization of Python 3.1
Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: > On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 19:06, Alex Legler wrote: > >> What is the point of stabilizing it if users shouldn't use it as main >> interpreter? Just leave it in ~arch until it can be safely used. >> > > Making it easily available so that people can port stuff, so that the > entire world may be able to use it as their main interpreter sooner? > > Seriously, it's out there, there's no reason to keep it from stable. > Just prevent people from making python invoke 3.x and everything will > be fine. > > Cheers, > > Dirkjan > > > Isn't ~arch supposed to be for testing? Isn't that the point of having ~arch? Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-dev] Stabilization of Python 3.1
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 19:06, Alex Legler wrote: > What is the point of stabilizing it if users shouldn't use it as main > interpreter? Just leave it in ~arch until it can be safely used. Making it easily available so that people can port stuff, so that the entire world may be able to use it as their main interpreter sooner? Seriously, it's out there, there's no reason to keep it from stable. Just prevent people from making python invoke 3.x and everything will be fine. Cheers, Dirkjan
Re: [gentoo-dev] Stabilization of Python 3.1
On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 18:48:27 +0200, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote: > Stabilization of Python 3.1.* will be requested at the beginning of > november. There was a suggestion to create a news item which would > inform users that temporarily they shouldn't switch to Python 3 as > their main interpreter. What is the point of stabilizing it if users shouldn't use it as main interpreter? Just leave it in ~arch until it can be safely used. Alex signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Stabilization of Python 3.1
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 18:48, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote: > Stabilization of Python 3.1.* will be requested at the beginning of november. > There was a suggestion to create a news item which would inform users that > temporarily they shouldn't switch to Python 3 as their main interpreter. > Python ebuilds don't automatically activate Python 3, so I'm not sure if > the news item is required. What is your opinion about it? I think a news item is probably a good idea, if only because it gives us something to point at. Cheers, Dirkjan
[gentoo-dev] Stabilization of Python 3.1
Stabilization of Python 3.1.* will be requested at the beginning of november. There was a suggestion to create a news item which would inform users that temporarily they shouldn't switch to Python 3 as their main interpreter. Python ebuilds don't automatically activate Python 3, so I'm not sure if the news item is required. What is your opinion about it? -- Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
[gentoo-dev] Last rite: media-libs/mlt++ (removal due 19 Oct 2009)
# Masked for removal # Merged in media-libs/mlt # Removal due 19 Oct 2009 media-libs/mlt++ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
