[gentoo-dev] Re: Stabilization of Python 3.1
Brian Harring posted on Sun, 20 Sep 2009 18:17:35 -0700 as excerpted: > Basically what gain is there? Stabilizing it at this point comes off as > "whee, we have py3k stabilized! Now go mask it on all of your boxes > since not a lot of the useful things play nice with it right now!" I'm on ~arch, so dealt with it already, doing pretty much exactly that. Nothing I have installed uses py3k yet, and there's really no reason I need it installed, so I have it locally masked. At some point, various packages will begin to depend on it, and when they need stabilizing, we'll need py3k stabilized as well. But meanwhile, as long as it itself is working well, we can use the time until then to smooth the transition when that day arrives, arranging for modules to install in multiple slots, etc. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Stabilization of Python 3.1
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 2:42 AM, Alistair Bush wrote: > > > > 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 > > I did not unmerge > > > Still, do you really want to have it in tree as stable? Really? > > Yes really. > > what said in the previous message which you snipped, eselect python should forget about >=python-3 is still valid IMHO
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.
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
[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)
[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
[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.
