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
On 03/19/2010 08:26 PM, Alec Warner wrote:
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 8:13 AM, Nikos Chantziarasrea...@arcor.de wrote:
You guys always make easy decisions so complicated. :P
Masking a package is not complicated.
Yes, that's why all the heated debates about Python 3 exist, because
it's all so
fre 2010-03-19 klockan 05:13 -0500 skrev Dale:
Because, when I installed gcc 4.3, I could then unmerge the old gcc.
That's why I didn't complain about that. With python, we still have to
have the current version plus the new version which is not being used at
all.
That was if you did
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
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
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
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
BdG == Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org writes:
BdG On 14 March 2010 06:09, James Cloos cl...@jhcloos.com wrote:
BdG == Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org writes:
BdG Abandoned packages do not belong in the portage tree.
Nonsense. That attitude only servers to harm the user base.
BdG You're
The amount of bugs concerning ebuilds that ignore LDFLAGS suggests
that this would be a good idea, b/c it seems a many maintainers are
completely unaware that their ebuilds do not respect LDFLAGS - so I
guess this needs more visibility.
P.S. If you wonder why this flag then
check
On 03/19/10 13:36, Peter Volkov wrote:
В Срд, 10/03/2010 в 05:08 +0100, Sebastian Pipping пишет:
How about a monthly bumpday?
Good idea, but it should follow our policy to inform maintainers _in
advance_: e.g. on first bumpday to work on bumps and notify maintainer
about this work by
On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 00:46:38 +0100
Doktor Notor notordok...@gmail.com wrote:
The amount of bugs concerning ebuilds that ignore LDFLAGS suggests
that this would be a good idea, b/c it seems a many maintainers are
completely unaware that their ebuilds do not respect LDFLAGS - so I
guess this
On Saturday 20 March 2010 19:46:38 Doktor Notor wrote:
The amount of bugs concerning ebuilds that ignore LDFLAGS suggests
that this would be a good idea, b/c it seems a many maintainers are
completely unaware that their ebuilds do not respect LDFLAGS - so I
guess this needs more visibility.
12 matches
Mail list logo
