Zeerak Mustafa Waseem wrote: > On Sun, Mar 07, 2010 at 09:08:14PM -0600, Ryan Hill wrote: >> A stable user who doesn't want python 3 installed shouldn't have it >> forced on them. If something is pulling in python-3 then that >> package needs to have its dependencies fixed. IIRC Portage isn't >> greedy wrt. SLOTs like it was before (unless you use @installed) so >> it shouldn't be pulled in by anything that doesn't require it.
+1 on that. If your program is only tested with python-2 or has regressions with python-3 (e.g. performance loss), a maintainer can and should mark that package as python-2 only. For new systems, the only "must have" python user i can think of is portage. And that has an explicit USE="python3" and as Zac outlined takes DEPEND-pains to ensure python-2.* is pulled in if available. So you're starting with python-2.* and every program not explicitly pulling in python-3.* should be happy with that. > I think that is being said is, due to python 3 being unnecessary for > majority of users, due to a small number of applications actually > using it, it should be in ~arch. You're actually damning most of the tree to be ~arch, if that's the criterion for stable. > Of course an application that depends on python 3, but is entirely > stable should not be marked testing (to my reckoning at least). I > think the best way to go about it is to set python-3 in ~arch. These are contradicting statements. Repoman will and should kill anyone attempting to do that. All [R,]DEPENDS of an ebuild must be stable, if that ebuild is to be marked stable, too. So b/c i still can't understand what's so horrible about python-3 going into stable (even if p.mask'ed, if that's the consensus), my vote goes to "mark it stable already".
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
