Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Packages pulling in python-3*, also they dont require it
2010-03-22 22:12:54 Jacob Godserv napisał(a): On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 10:11, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis arfre...@gentoo.org wrote: 2010-03-20 01:51:44 Duncan napisał(a): So let's just recognize that it's not a perfect situation, create a news item saying that python-3 will soon (give a date) be unmasked, and suggest that users not needing it may wish to package.mask it themselves, with a link to documentation with specific instructions and a bit more detail on why they might wish to mask it and under what circumstances they might not. I'd suggest an unmasking date 30 days after the release of the news item. Python 3 is not masked. The discussion is about stabilization. Duncan's comments still apply, though, right? What's against writing a news item about stabilizing Python? There is already a thread about news item: http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_814e67764c17f88bde94f22e9a392e4f.xml -- Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Packages pulling in python-3*, also they dont require it
On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 10:11, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis arfre...@gentoo.org wrote: 2010-03-20 01:51:44 Duncan napisał(a): So let's just recognize that it's not a perfect situation, create a news item saying that python-3 will soon (give a date) be unmasked, and suggest that users not needing it may wish to package.mask it themselves, with a link to documentation with specific instructions and a bit more detail on why they might wish to mask it and under what circumstances they might not. I'd suggest an unmasking date 30 days after the release of the news item. Python 3 is not masked. The discussion is about stabilization. Duncan's comments still apply, though, right? What's against writing a news item about stabilizing Python? -- Jacob For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now — and never to be equaled again. If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened. Are you ready?
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Packages pulling in python-3*, also they dont require it
Duncan wrote: ... ++ - I can only add the saying With freedom comes great responsibility.. Maybe the python herd could maintain a little status page which covers informations like: - Estimated python 3 compatibility in respect to the packages in the main tree. - Recommendations if installing makes sense or not (e.g. package X gains feature Y with python 3). - Recommendations if setting python 3 as system engine makes already sense or not. This way gentoo can give its users the tools needed to make a good decision if python 3 makes sense on his system. For me as a user I need more time to study if an action makes sense than implementing said action (e.g. locally masking python 3 - It would not be the first time masking a package). If one isn't into python, it gets even more complicated. J_M
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Packages pulling in python-3*, also they dont require it
On 03/20/2010 02:56 AM, Jean-Marc Hengen wrote: Duncan wrote: ... ++ - I can only add the saying With freedom comes great responsibility.. Maybe the python herd could maintain a little status page which covers informations like: - Estimated python 3 compatibility in respect to the packages in the main tree. That would be easy enough to generate from dependencies. Surely there are some dependencies that need to be updated, but that shouldn't be much work. For example, I've already updated the cracklib and libxml2 deps to indicate lack of python3 support. - Recommendations if installing makes sense or not (e.g. package X gains feature Y with python 3). - Recommendations if setting python 3 as system engine makes already sense or not. This way gentoo can give its users the tools needed to make a good decision if python 3 makes sense on his system. For me as a user I need more time to study if an action makes sense than implementing said action (e.g. locally masking python 3 - It would not be the first time masking a package). If one isn't into python, it gets even more complicated. I would advise people to go ahead and install it as long as they can spare a little disk space and cpu time. Anybody who is tight on those resources should feel free to mask it (and the dependency resolver will certainly notify you if this is not feasible in your case). Honestly, I don't see a need for lots of data analysis here, but maybe some people just like that kind of thing. -- Thanks, Zac
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Packages pulling in python-3*, also they dont require it
2010-03-20 13:51:37 Peter Hjalmarsson napisał(a): I have a question related to this: If I have package X which supports python2 and python 3, and I install it without python3 installed it will only install python2-files (i.e. /usr/lib/python2.x/*), right? What happens if I later install packages Y that is only python3, and relies on the python3 parts of package X? Can this happen and how will the PM handle that (reemerge package X installing the python3 parts or fail to compile package Y due to missing python module)? As the news item says, you should run python-updater after installation of Python 3.1. -- Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Packages pulling in python-3*, also they dont require it
2010-03-20 01:51:44 Duncan napisał(a): So let's just recognize that it's not a perfect situation, create a news item saying that python-3 will soon (give a date) be unmasked, and suggest that users not needing it may wish to package.mask it themselves, with a link to documentation with specific instructions and a bit more detail on why they might wish to mask it and under what circumstances they might not. I'd suggest an unmasking date 30 days after the release of the news item. Python 3 is not masked. The discussion is about stabilization. -- Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Packages pulling in python-3*, also they dont require it
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 8:13 AM, Nikos Chantziaras rea...@arcor.de wrote: On 03/19/2010 10:57 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 03:54:28 -0500 Dalerdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 23:17:17 +0100 Ben de Grootyng...@gentoo.org wrote: Because it is extremely useless to the great majority of users. Most packages in the tree are useless to the great majority of users. Which is why most users don't install everything. I have about 1000 packages installed here. The packages installed are either something I use or a dependency of something I use. What exactly is this being installed for again? If nothing depends on it, there is no need to have it. It's being installed because it's a dependency of something you use. Replace Python with any other library and we wouldn't be having this discussion. It's weird that we have this discussion, that's true. Why don't you guys simply do what you did before when Qt3 was still in the tree? Qt3 applications depended on x11-libs/qt:3, Qt4 ones on x11-libs/qt:4 (before the Qt4 ebuild split). Using your example, some applications would have had to exist that could use either Qt3 or Qt4, so a greedy SLOT matcher would pull in Qt4 (and to be equal to the python case, portage would have to build two copies of all the binaries, one linked against qt3 and one linked against qt4, because python.eclass does something similar, but I digress.) It seems very obvious and straightforward that the same applies here. And if a package offers both Python 2 and Python 3 compatibility, it should depend on whatever the upstream of that package considers best. When choosing dependencies you want to maximize flexibility (because users like it for some reason). So we chose 'dev-lang/python' because typically any ole' version of python will work. If we hardcoded everything upstream 'recommended' (many upstreams don't make such recommendations either, which puts us in an interesting situation) it means when our users want to do something upstream does not 'recommend' they have to do a bunch of work like have a custom overlay just so they can changed a DEPEND string that should not have been so specific in the first place. Amusingly this very thing happened to me at work; a bunch of scripts depend on python but their dependencies are 'python2.4' and Ubuntu Lucid has no python2.4 (it ships with 2.6). Now I get to rewrite all the dependencies in all the debs to depend on 'python 3' instead of 'python2.4.' Most of this work would have been unnecessary had the dependencies just been a bit more flexible. Also, we had a qt and qt4 USE flag before. Why not python and python3 flags? That's an additional way ebuilds can choose deps. You guys always make easy decisions so complicated. :P Masking a package is not complicated. I just want to give props to Arfrever for getting Python3 into the tree so quickly. Thanks for all your work on this. -A
