Alec Warner wrote:
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 1:27 PM, Ben de Grootyng...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 18 March 2010 20:24, Fabian Groffengrob...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 18-03-2010 20:20:02 +0100, Thomas Sachau wrote:
There are 2 ways to fix this issue:
-fix the dependency string for
On 03/19/2010 12:15 AM, Dale wrote:
I think this is because people that use Gentoo do so because it doesn't
install things they don't need. Why install a package that is used by
no other package? It's pointless.
I would also add, if it gets installed and is used by no other package,
On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 23:17:17 +0100
Ben de Groot yng...@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.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Zac Medico wrote:
On 03/19/2010 12:15 AM, Dale wrote:
I think this is because people that use Gentoo do so because it doesn't
install things they don't need. Why install a package that is used by
no other package? It's pointless.
I would also add, if it gets installed and is used by no
On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 03:54:28 -0500
Dale rdalek1...@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
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
Zac Medico wrote:
I think what most people want is for portage not to pull in a package
that nothing uses. I'm not a dev nor a programmer but I have yet to see
any good reason for installing something that is not being used. It's
not being tested to see if it is stable. It would have to
2010-03-19 10:23:31 Dale napisał(a):
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
On 19.3.2010 11.35, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
I can add python2 USE flag (enabled by default) to some versions of
dev-lang/python. With USE=-python2, Python 2 will not be required and
Python 3 will be set as main active version of Python.
You should move to the same
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 04:23:31AM -0500, Dale wrote:
OK. Right now, as you type this, what package depends on python-3 and
won't work with python-2? Anything at all? If it is nothing, then why
install it?
To some degree it's the users choice which python version they choose
to settle
2010-03-19 10:39:07 Petteri Räty napisał(a):
On 19.3.2010 11.35, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
I can add python2 USE flag (enabled by default) to some versions of
dev-lang/python. With USE=-python2, Python 2 will not be required and
Python 3 will be set as main active
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 10:55:03AM +0100, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
wrote:
2010-03-19 10:39:07 Petteri Räty napisał(a):
On 19.3.2010 11.35, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
I can add python2 USE flag (enabled by default) to some versions of
dev-lang/python.
On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 02:56:08 -0700
Brian Harring ferri...@gmail.com wrote:
We are waiting on ABI dependencies (and extended support for
multiple ABIs in package manager), which will provide some needed
functionality.
You can do it now w/out waiting on ABI dependencies- I'm not saying
On 03/19/2010 01:52 AM, Dale wrote:
I think what most people want is for portage not to pull in a package
that nothing uses. I'm not a dev nor a programmer but I have yet to see
any good reason for installing something that is not being used. It's
not being tested to see if it is stable. It
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 04:23:31 -0500
Dalerdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
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.
OK. Right now, as you type this, what
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 10:01:05AM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 02:56:08 -0700
Brian Harring ferri...@gmail.com wrote:
We are waiting on ABI dependencies (and extended support for
multiple ABIs in package manager), which will provide some needed
functionality.
2010-03-19 11:13:48 Dale napisał(a):
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 04:23:31 -0500
Dalerdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
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.
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
2010-03-19 11:13:48 Dale napisał(a):
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 04:23:31 -0500
Dalerdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
It's being installed because it's a dependency of something you use.
Replace Python with any other
Alistair Bush wrote:
Zac Medico wrote:
I think what most people want is for portage not to pull in a package
that nothing uses. I'm not a dev nor a programmer but I have yet to see
any good reason for installing something that is not being used. It's
not being tested to see if it is stable.
On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 10:02:44 -0500
Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
Because in my opinion, portage is the first thing in line to keep a
system sane. Installing packages that are not needed means that
portage fails on that. So in your example, portage fails to do its
due diligence and it
Hi,
i would like to see a discussion and, if needed, a decision on the following
topic:
Currently, some packages just depend on dev-lang/python. Arfrever claims it
to be right, but this
dependency does pull in python-3*, even if the package does not require it (or
does not even work
with it).
On 18-03-2010 20:20:02 +0100, Thomas Sachau wrote:
There are 2 ways to fix this issue:
-fix the dependency string for those packages (including the lines in
distutils.eclass)
or (since Arfrever claims current portage behaviour is wrong)
-change portage behaviour to be satisfied with a
On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 20:20:02 +0100
Thomas Sachau to...@gentoo.org wrote:
-change portage behaviour to be satisfied with a python slot and to
not require other slots.
But then you'll never get new slots for the majority of dependencies
where you do usually want the newest version. If Portage
2010-03-18 20:20:02 Thomas Sachau napisał(a):
Currently, some packages just depend on dev-lang/python. Arfrever claims it
to be right
It's correct only for packages (e.g. dev-python/setuptools), which support all
versions of Python (including Python 3).
Arfrever claims current portage
On 03/18/2010 08:28 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 20:20:02 +0100
Thomas Sachau to...@gentoo.org wrote:
-change portage behaviour to be satisfied with a python slot and to
not require other slots.
But then you'll never get new slots for the majority of dependencies
where
On 03/18/2010 08:33 PM, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
2010-03-18 20:20:02 Thomas Sachau napisał(a):
Currently, some packages just depend on dev-lang/python. Arfrever claims
it to be right
It's correct only for packages (e.g. dev-python/setuptools), which support all
versions
2010-03-18 20:47:35 Thomas Sachau napisał(a):
On 03/18/2010 08:33 PM, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
2010-03-18 20:20:02 Thomas Sachau napisał(a):
Currently, some packages just depend on dev-lang/python. Arfrever claims
it to be right
It's correct only for packages (e.g.
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
On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 22:02:38 +0200
Petteri Räty betelge...@gentoo.org wrote:
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
On 03/18/2010 08:55 PM, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
2010-03-18 20:47:35 Thomas Sachau napisał(a):
On 03/18/2010 08:33 PM, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
2010-03-18 20:20:02 Thomas Sachau napisał(a):
Currently, some packages just depend on dev-lang/python. Arfrever
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
-
On 18 March 2010 20:24, Fabian Groffen grob...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 18-03-2010 20:20:02 +0100, Thomas Sachau wrote:
There are 2 ways to fix this issue:
-fix the dependency string for those packages (including the lines in
distutils.eclass)
or (since Arfrever claims current portage
On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 21:27:50 +0100
Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org wrote:
Since the last option will take time in any case, I guess the first
option is the best to achieve the desired goal: make sure Python 3
stays as far away as possible from any system that doesn't need it.
And the best
On 03/18/2010 10:10 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 22:02:38 +0200
Petteri Räty betelge...@gentoo.org wrote:
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
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
On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 23:00:56 +0200
Petteri Räty betelge...@gentoo.org wrote:
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
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 09:13:01PM +0100, Thomas Sachau wrote:
On 03/18/2010 08:55 PM, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
2010-03-18 20:47:35 Thomas Sachau napisał(a):
On 03/18/2010 08:33 PM, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
2010-03-18 20:20:02 Thomas Sachau napisał(a):
On 03/18/2010 10:00 PM, Petteri Räty wrote:
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
On 03/18/10 21:53, Doktor Notor wrote:
Why on earth would you mask a working
package with extremely active maintainer in CVS
Upstream stability is unequel Gentoo stability.
Sebastian
On 18 March 2010 21:53, Doktor Notor notordok...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 21:27:50 +0100
Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org wrote:
Since the last option will take time in any case, I guess the first
option is the best to achieve the desired goal: make sure Python 3
stays as far
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 1:27 PM, Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 18 March 2010 20:24, Fabian Groffen grob...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 18-03-2010 20:20:02 +0100, Thomas Sachau wrote:
There are 2 ways to fix this issue:
-fix the dependency string for those packages (including the lines in
41 matches
Mail list logo
