Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: */*: More Py2 stuff

2020-07-29 Thread Christian Zuckschwerdt
Aaron Bauman :
> 
> How do you disagree with users keywording that package *not* running the 
> latest version?
> Further, if they are on a stable system running it as keyworded... They know 
> how to unmask <3 if they want to use the Py2 only version. 

I don't have any insight on policy and won't venture any opinion, but perhaps I 
can showcase my user experience:

I run -python2_7 and use stable sys-boot/refind -- it was quite the surprise to 
see a mask and 30-days-to-removal on my boot manager for a (unused) optional 
dep.


thanks,
Christian




Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: */*: More Py2 stuff

2020-07-29 Thread Marek Szuba
On 2020-07-29 16:22, Alexis Ballier wrote:

> I think you've been told several times already, but impacting users
> with a mask (that can't do anything useful about it) and not bothering
> to file bugs for developers (that *can* do something about it) is not
> the proper way to achieve anything here.

This. Very much this. Especially the part about communicating with other
Gentoo developers by last-rite messages.

-- 
MS



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: */*: More Py2 stuff

2020-07-29 Thread Aaron Bauman



On July 29, 2020 10:18:10 AM EDT, Thomas Deutschmann  wrote:
>On 2020-07-29 16:07, Andreas Sturmlechner wrote:
>> Package is ~arch exclusively so everyone using it was already
>upgraded. 
>> Masking <3.0.0_rc1 is perfectly fine if you want to keep old while
>not 
>> blocking py2-masks of dependencies.
>
>While I even disagree with that, this is not even what happened.
>
>And yes, I probably wouldn't have notice this and wouldn't care if only
><3 were masked.
>
>But again, that's not what has happened.

So, there we have it. You "wouldn't care" if it didn't touch *your* package. 
Then, you couldn't simply fix it as another has suggested. 

Typical. You will fight it vice saying, "yea, that was an option I could have 
taken".

How do you disagree with users keywording that package *not* running the latest 
version?

Further, if they are on a stable system running it as keyworded... They know 
how to unmask <3 if they want to use the Py2 only version. 

Silliness...

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.



Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: */*: More Py2 stuff

2020-07-29 Thread Alexis Ballier
On Wed, 29 Jul 2020 10:03:47 -0400
Aaron Bauman  wrote:

> Adjust the mask, drop the ebuild, or simply remove the mask. I would
> happily apologize for a mistake, but reverting something that is
> largely not in error seems silly. 
> 
> Again, this is a massive commit, but it should be the last time. Look
> at the previous sets of masks... impact vs inconvenience was pretty
> low. 


I think you've been told several times already, but impacting users
with a mask (that can't do anything useful about it) and not bothering
to file bugs for developers (that *can* do something about it) is not
the proper way to achieve anything here.

I believe there are a few quiz questions that closely relate to that
kind of impact.



Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: */*: More Py2 stuff

2020-07-29 Thread Andreas Sturmlechner
On Mittwoch, 29. Juli 2020 16:18:10 CEST Thomas Deutschmann wrote:
> But again, that's not what has happened.

But that's what you can do.


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.


Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: */*: More Py2 stuff

2020-07-29 Thread Thomas Deutschmann
On 2020-07-29 16:07, Andreas Sturmlechner wrote:
> Package is ~arch exclusively so everyone using it was already upgraded. 
> Masking <3.0.0_rc1 is perfectly fine if you want to keep old while not 
> blocking py2-masks of dependencies.

While I even disagree with that, this is not even what happened.

And yes, I probably wouldn't have notice this and wouldn't care if only
<3 were masked.

But again, that's not what has happened.


-- 
Regards,
Thomas Deutschmann / Gentoo Linux Developer
C4DD 695F A713 8F24 2AA1 5638 5849 7EE5 1D5D 74A5



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: */*: More Py2 stuff

2020-07-29 Thread Andreas Sturmlechner
On Mittwoch, 29. Juli 2020 15:59:17 CEST Thomas Deutschmann wrote:
> On 2020-07-29 15:46, Aaron Bauman wrote:
> > Yes, net-nntp/sabnzbd is valid as it still has an ebuild with only
> > py2.7. So fix it instead of bitching and being lazy about it. You
> > could have done that vice revert the commit.
> 
> Like you can see, it's currently in RC state. No cleanup of previous
> stable version will happen before this version was declared stable.

Package is ~arch exclusively so everyone using it was already upgraded. 
Masking <3.0.0_rc1 is perfectly fine if you want to keep old while not 
blocking py2-masks of dependencies.

Regards,
Andreas

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.


Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: */*: More Py2 stuff

2020-07-29 Thread Aaron Bauman



On July 29, 2020 9:59:17 AM EDT, Thomas Deutschmann  wrote:
>On 2020-07-29 15:46, Aaron Bauman wrote:
>> Yes, net-nntp/sabnzbd is valid as it still has an ebuild with only
>> py2.7. So fix it instead of bitching and being lazy about it. You
>> could have done that vice revert the commit.
>
>What are you talking about?!
>
>When upstream released first version supporting Py3, it was added to
>repository. So don't call me lazy!
>
>Like you can see, it's currently in RC state. No cleanup of previous
>stable version will happen before this version was declared stable.
>
>So no, your list was wrong.
>
>
>> I will revert your revert when I return to my laptop. Thanks for
>> nothing.
>
>...and not just because of net-nntp/sabnzbd like this thread has shown.
>
>I followed Gentoo policy when I reverted a broken commit.
>
>If can only urge you to revise pkg list and pay more attention for your
>next commit.

None of it is stable. So, what's your point?

The commit is not broken. It just masks a package you care about which has 
Py2.7. 

Adjust the mask, drop the ebuild, or simply remove the mask. I would happily 
apologize for a mistake, but reverting something that is largely not in error 
seems silly. 

Again, this is a massive commit, but it should be the last time. Look at the 
previous sets of masks... impact vs inconvenience was pretty low. 

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.



Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: */*: More Py2 stuff

2020-07-29 Thread Thomas Deutschmann
On 2020-07-29 15:46, Aaron Bauman wrote:
> Yes, net-nntp/sabnzbd is valid as it still has an ebuild with only
> py2.7. So fix it instead of bitching and being lazy about it. You
> could have done that vice revert the commit.

What are you talking about?!

When upstream released first version supporting Py3, it was added to
repository. So don't call me lazy!

Like you can see, it's currently in RC state. No cleanup of previous
stable version will happen before this version was declared stable.

So no, your list was wrong.


> I will revert your revert when I return to my laptop. Thanks for
> nothing.

...and not just because of net-nntp/sabnzbd like this thread has shown.

I followed Gentoo policy when I reverted a broken commit.

If can only urge you to revise pkg list and pay more attention for your
next commit.


-- 
Regards,
Thomas Deutschmann / Gentoo Linux Developer
C4DD 695F A713 8F24 2AA1 5638 5849 7EE5 1D5D 74A5



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: */*: More Py2 stuff

2020-07-29 Thread Aaron Bauman



On July 29, 2020 9:16:31 AM EDT, Thomas Deutschmann  wrote:
>On 2020-07-29 09:38, Aaron Bauman wrote:
>> This is exactly how it went before. No one is saying "it's your
>> fault". Fix whatever the issue is and remove it from the list.
>
>No. You can't drop the bomb and let other fix the damage you created.
>That's not how Gentoo is supposed to work.
>
>C'mon. You even added net-nntp/sabnzbd to that list again which created
>a lot of drama beginning of this year. Please don't try to say you
>reviewed anything...

Yes, net-nntp/sabnzbd is valid as it still has an ebuild with only py2.7. So 
fix it instead of bitching and being lazy about it. You could have done that 
vice revert the commit. 

Surely, I had a mistake or two in the 108 package list, but other devs have 
already started fixing issues and now have reverted their changes because you 
want to revert something vice fixing it. 

The discussions on -dev outlined all of this before. Further, this is the last 
*big* set for Py2. Of which, most packages will go away. Again, save the few 
and move on. 

I will revert your revert when I return to my laptop. Thanks for nothing. 
-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.



Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: */*: More Py2 stuff

2020-07-29 Thread Thomas Deutschmann
On 2020-07-29 09:38, Aaron Bauman wrote:
> This is exactly how it went before. No one is saying "it's your
> fault". Fix whatever the issue is and remove it from the list.

No. You can't drop the bomb and let other fix the damage you created.
That's not how Gentoo is supposed to work.

C'mon. You even added net-nntp/sabnzbd to that list again which created
a lot of drama beginning of this year. Please don't try to say you
reviewed anything...


-- 
Regards,
Thomas Deutschmann / Gentoo Linux Developer
C4DD 695F A713 8F24 2AA1 5638 5849 7EE5 1D5D 74A5



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: */*: More Py2 stuff

2020-07-29 Thread Thomas Deutschmann
FYI:

I reverted the entire commit like this thread and bugs clearly show that
this list wasn't even reviewed/checked:

https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/commit/?id=b76ee2f3e20b55d268ec291a1a1328cc047f5a04


-- 
Regards,
Thomas Deutschmann / Gentoo Linux Developer
C4DD 695F A713 8F24 2AA1 5638 5849 7EE5 1D5D 74A5



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: */*: More Py2 stuff

2020-07-29 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 4:09 AM Ulrich Mueller  wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 29 Jul 2020, Aaron Bauman wrote:
>
> > # Aaron Bauman  (2020-07-28)
> > # More Py2 only stuff. Plz see -dev ML for discussions
> > # Remove bindings, port to Py3, etc
> > # Removal in 30 days
> > [...]
> > app-office/lyx
>
> I have unmasked this one again:
>
> "All python scripts distributed with LyX should now be compatible with
> both python 2.x and python 3.x."
> https://www.lyx.org/announce/2_3_1.txt

Using package.mask in this way creates a TERRIBLE user experience.  It
causes users to look for alternatives and go through a lot of churn
expecting the package to be removed, when it turns out there is
nothing wrong and the package doesn't need to be removed.

Bugs are a much more appropriate way to handle these situations.  To
start with, they ensure the maintainer even gets notified at all.  A
package mask doesn't actually notify the maintainer at all - it
notifies anybody who has the package installed, and only when the host
it is installed on is updated.  It is possible (albeit less likely)
that the maintainer might not have it installed, and more likely that
they could have it installed in some container that they don't update
daily.

When the maintainer is able to fix the problem then users don't get
the churn of a package mask.

Obviously we're going to have packages that can't be migrated or which
aren't maintained, and these should be treecleaned as with any other
issue.

If for some reason bugs are just THAT difficult to create, why not at
least post the list on -dev-announce a few days before actually
implementing the mask?  You obviously have the list of packages if
you're masking them, and you're even posting it on the list.  So just
post it on the list ahead of time so that people can react before they
actually get masked.

It seems like we're creating a terrible user experience simply because
we can.  This seems to be going back to how things were 10+ years ago
when stuff broke for users often simply because nobody cared to even
bother with communication and QA.

-- 
Rich



Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: */*: More Py2 stuff

2020-07-29 Thread Kent Fredric
On Tue, 28 Jul 2020 19:17:04 -0400
Aaron Bauman  wrote:

> net-irc/quasselgrep

Uh, what?

[I] net-irc/quasselgrep
 Installed versions:  0_p20190211(13:18:43 
18/07/20)(PYTHON_TARGETS="python3_7 -python3_6")

Maybe just the older version?


pgpZibCoYPFgd.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: */*: More Py2 stuff

2020-07-29 Thread Christian Zuckschwerdt
> It has a dependency on sys-boot/udk which was masked due to
> using py2.7 only. Hope that helps.

Perhaps just the dependency can be removed? Building with gnu-efi still works 
fine, the TianoCore UDK is just an alternative.
s.a. https://sourceforge.net/p/refind/code/ci/master/tree/BUILDING.txt#l67


thanks,
Christian




Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: */*: More Py2 stuff

2020-07-29 Thread Ulrich Mueller
> On Wed, 29 Jul 2020, Aaron Bauman wrote:

> # Aaron Bauman  (2020-07-28)
> # More Py2 only stuff. Plz see -dev ML for discussions
> # Remove bindings, port to Py3, etc
> # Removal in 30 days
> [...]
> app-office/lyx

I have unmasked this one again:

"All python scripts distributed with LyX should now be compatible with
both python 2.x and python 3.x."
https://www.lyx.org/announce/2_3_1.txt


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: */*: More Py2 stuff

2020-07-29 Thread Aaron Bauman



On July 29, 2020 3:28:50 AM EDT, "Michał Górny"  wrote:
>On Wed, 2020-07-29 at 03:25 -0400, Aaron Bauman wrote:
>> 
>> On July 29, 2020 2:49:14 AM EDT, Matt Turner 
>wrote:
>> > On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 7:32 PM Aaron Bauman 
>wrote:
>> > > On July 28, 2020 9:57:44 PM EDT, Gordon Pettey
>
>> > wrote:
>> > > > That dependency is only if USE="-gnuefi". sys-boot/gnu-efi has
>no
>> > > > Python
>> > > > dependency. Instead of masking/removing refind, remove the USE
>flag
>> > and
>> > > > force the gnu-efi dependency, or reverse the condition, add
>> > > > IUSE="tianocore", and mask that USE flag.
>> > > > 
>> > > > On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 7:06 PM Aaron Bauman 
>> > wrote:
>> > > > > On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 04:55:57PM -0700, Matt Turner wrote:
>> > > > > > On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 4:17 PM Aaron Bauman
>
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > sys-boot/refind
>> > > > > > 
>> > > > > > How did you conclude that this package depends on Python at
>all?
>> > > > > > 
>> > > > > 
>> > > > > Hi, Matt. It has a dependency on sys-boot/udk which was
>masked due
>> > to
>> > > > > using py2.7 only. Hope that helps.
>> > > > > 
>> > > > > --
>> > > > > Cheers,
>> > > > > Aaron
>> > > > > 
>> > > 
>> > > That is for the maintainer to decide. Hence, all the previous
>> > discussions surrounding this topic. It is a massive undertaking to
>> > remove py2.7 from the tree.
>> > 
>> > You've made a very strong case for filing bugs and asking
>maintainers
>> > to figure out what to do before masking packages for removal.
>> 
>> Haven't we had this discussion before? Further, hasn't the community
>been made aware through multiple channels of the impending removal of
>Py2?
>> 
>
>Sure, and I don't mind removing packages that clearly don't support py3
>and whose maintainers have done nothing about that.  However, I do mind
>removing packages that do support py3 and that ended up on the list
>probably because some deep indirect dep had some kind of py2 usage
>problem (that I had no reason to know about), maybe because it's any-r1
>or had optional USE=python...

This is exactly how it went before. No one is saying "it's your fault". Fix 
whatever the issue is and remove it from the list. 

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.



Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: */*: More Py2 stuff

2020-07-29 Thread Michał Górny
On Wed, 2020-07-29 at 03:25 -0400, Aaron Bauman wrote:
> 
> On July 29, 2020 2:49:14 AM EDT, Matt Turner  wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 7:32 PM Aaron Bauman  wrote:
> > > On July 28, 2020 9:57:44 PM EDT, Gordon Pettey 
> > wrote:
> > > > That dependency is only if USE="-gnuefi". sys-boot/gnu-efi has no
> > > > Python
> > > > dependency. Instead of masking/removing refind, remove the USE flag
> > and
> > > > force the gnu-efi dependency, or reverse the condition, add
> > > > IUSE="tianocore", and mask that USE flag.
> > > > 
> > > > On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 7:06 PM Aaron Bauman 
> > wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 04:55:57PM -0700, Matt Turner wrote:
> > > > > > On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 4:17 PM Aaron Bauman 
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > sys-boot/refind
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > How did you conclude that this package depends on Python at all?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Hi, Matt. It has a dependency on sys-boot/udk which was masked due
> > to
> > > > > using py2.7 only. Hope that helps.
> > > > > 
> > > > > --
> > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > Aaron
> > > > > 
> > > 
> > > That is for the maintainer to decide. Hence, all the previous
> > discussions surrounding this topic. It is a massive undertaking to
> > remove py2.7 from the tree.
> > 
> > You've made a very strong case for filing bugs and asking maintainers
> > to figure out what to do before masking packages for removal.
> 
> Haven't we had this discussion before? Further, hasn't the community been 
> made aware through multiple channels of the impending removal of Py2?
> 

Sure, and I don't mind removing packages that clearly don't support py3
and whose maintainers have done nothing about that.  However, I do mind
removing packages that do support py3 and that ended up on the list
probably because some deep indirect dep had some kind of py2 usage
problem (that I had no reason to know about), maybe because it's any-r1
or had optional USE=python...

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: */*: More Py2 stuff

2020-07-29 Thread Aaron Bauman



On July 29, 2020 2:49:14 AM EDT, Matt Turner  wrote:
>On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 7:32 PM Aaron Bauman  wrote:
>> On July 28, 2020 9:57:44 PM EDT, Gordon Pettey 
>wrote:
>> >That dependency is only if USE="-gnuefi". sys-boot/gnu-efi has no
>> >Python
>> >dependency. Instead of masking/removing refind, remove the USE flag
>and
>> >force the gnu-efi dependency, or reverse the condition, add
>> >IUSE="tianocore", and mask that USE flag.
>> >
>> >On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 7:06 PM Aaron Bauman 
>wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 04:55:57PM -0700, Matt Turner wrote:
>> >> > On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 4:17 PM Aaron Bauman 
>> >wrote:
>> >> > > sys-boot/refind
>> >> >
>> >> > How did you conclude that this package depends on Python at all?
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Hi, Matt. It has a dependency on sys-boot/udk which was masked due
>to
>> >> using py2.7 only. Hope that helps.
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Cheers,
>> >> Aaron
>> >>
>>
>> That is for the maintainer to decide. Hence, all the previous
>discussions surrounding this topic. It is a massive undertaking to
>remove py2.7 from the tree.
>
>You've made a very strong case for filing bugs and asking maintainers
>to figure out what to do before masking packages for removal.

Haven't we had this discussion before? Further, hasn't the community been made 
aware through multiple channels of the impending removal of Py2?

In the end, a few packages get saved and a *lot* go away. Let's just save the 
few and move on please...

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.



Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: */*: More Py2 stuff

2020-07-29 Thread Matt Turner
On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 7:32 PM Aaron Bauman  wrote:
> On July 28, 2020 9:57:44 PM EDT, Gordon Pettey  wrote:
> >That dependency is only if USE="-gnuefi". sys-boot/gnu-efi has no
> >Python
> >dependency. Instead of masking/removing refind, remove the USE flag and
> >force the gnu-efi dependency, or reverse the condition, add
> >IUSE="tianocore", and mask that USE flag.
> >
> >On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 7:06 PM Aaron Bauman  wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 04:55:57PM -0700, Matt Turner wrote:
> >> > On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 4:17 PM Aaron Bauman 
> >wrote:
> >> > > sys-boot/refind
> >> >
> >> > How did you conclude that this package depends on Python at all?
> >> >
> >>
> >> Hi, Matt. It has a dependency on sys-boot/udk which was masked due to
> >> using py2.7 only. Hope that helps.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Cheers,
> >> Aaron
> >>
>
> That is for the maintainer to decide. Hence, all the previous discussions 
> surrounding this topic. It is a massive undertaking to remove py2.7 from the 
> tree.

You've made a very strong case for filing bugs and asking maintainers
to figure out what to do before masking packages for removal.



Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: */*: More Py2 stuff

2020-07-28 Thread Michał Górny
On Tue, 2020-07-28 at 22:32 -0400, Aaron Bauman wrote:
> 
> On July 28, 2020 9:57:44 PM EDT, Gordon Pettey  wrote:
> > That dependency is only if USE="-gnuefi". sys-boot/gnu-efi has no
> > Python
> > dependency. Instead of masking/removing refind, remove the USE flag and
> > force the gnu-efi dependency, or reverse the condition, add
> > IUSE="tianocore", and mask that USE flag.
> > 
> > On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 7:06 PM Aaron Bauman  wrote:
> > 
> > > On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 04:55:57PM -0700, Matt Turner wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 4:17 PM Aaron Bauman 
> > wrote:
> > > > > sys-boot/refind
> > > > 
> > > > How did you conclude that this package depends on Python at all?
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Hi, Matt. It has a dependency on sys-boot/udk which was masked due to
> > > using py2.7 only. Hope that helps.
> > > 
> > > --
> > > Cheers,
> > > Aaron
> > > 
> 
> That is for the maintainer to decide. Hence, all the previous discussions 
> surrounding this topic. It is a massive undertaking to remove py2.7 from the 
> tree. 
> 

It is a massive undertaking to figure out which of the deep dependencies
made you conclude to list perfectly maintained Python 3-only packages.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: */*: More Py2 stuff

2020-07-28 Thread Aaron Bauman



On July 28, 2020 9:57:44 PM EDT, Gordon Pettey  wrote:
>That dependency is only if USE="-gnuefi". sys-boot/gnu-efi has no
>Python
>dependency. Instead of masking/removing refind, remove the USE flag and
>force the gnu-efi dependency, or reverse the condition, add
>IUSE="tianocore", and mask that USE flag.
>
>On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 7:06 PM Aaron Bauman  wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 04:55:57PM -0700, Matt Turner wrote:
>> > On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 4:17 PM Aaron Bauman 
>wrote:
>> > > sys-boot/refind
>> >
>> > How did you conclude that this package depends on Python at all?
>> >
>>
>> Hi, Matt. It has a dependency on sys-boot/udk which was masked due to
>> using py2.7 only. Hope that helps.
>>
>> --
>> Cheers,
>> Aaron
>>

That is for the maintainer to decide. Hence, all the previous discussions 
surrounding this topic. It is a massive undertaking to remove py2.7 from the 
tree. 

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.



Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: */*: More Py2 stuff

2020-07-28 Thread Gordon Pettey
That dependency is only if USE="-gnuefi". sys-boot/gnu-efi has no Python
dependency. Instead of masking/removing refind, remove the USE flag and
force the gnu-efi dependency, or reverse the condition, add
IUSE="tianocore", and mask that USE flag.

On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 7:06 PM Aaron Bauman  wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 04:55:57PM -0700, Matt Turner wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 4:17 PM Aaron Bauman  wrote:
> > > sys-boot/refind
> >
> > How did you conclude that this package depends on Python at all?
> >
>
> Hi, Matt. It has a dependency on sys-boot/udk which was masked due to
> using py2.7 only. Hope that helps.
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Aaron
>


Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: */*: More Py2 stuff

2020-07-28 Thread Aaron Bauman
On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 04:55:57PM -0700, Matt Turner wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 4:17 PM Aaron Bauman  wrote:
> > sys-boot/refind
> 
> How did you conclude that this package depends on Python at all?
> 

Hi, Matt. It has a dependency on sys-boot/udk which was masked due to
using py2.7 only. Hope that helps.

-- 
Cheers,
Aaron


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Re: [gentoo-dev] Last rites: */*: More Py2 stuff

2020-07-28 Thread Matt Turner
On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 4:17 PM Aaron Bauman  wrote:
> sys-boot/refind

How did you conclude that this package depends on Python at all?