Admittedly, this one of the things about IPS that has long bother me. It's very "opinionated". IPS "knows better" than I do what packages should be installed, and in what versions, etc. and if I don't happen to agree (i.e. in this case, please don't just remove Python 2.5) well, that's just too bad.
On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 9:58 AM, Gordon Ross <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm not saying you have to keep building and delivering it, > but if the packaging system would not force me to remove > such older packages, that would have made my life easier. > > > On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 9:52 AM, Alexander Pyhalov <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 05/12/17 04:40 PM, Gordon Ross wrote: >>> >>> Well, when a package is made "obsolete" by another (newer) one, we're >>> telling the packaging system that the newer one is a compatible >>> replacement for the older one, right? In this case, that's not true. >>> Python 2.7 is not a compatible replacement for Python 2.6. With it >>> marked obsolete, IPS actually makes it difficult to install the older >>> version along side. I think that's a mistake. >>> >>> Would it not have been enough to remove Python 2.6 from the userland >>> consolidation? >>> (so it's only installed if I actually ask for it?) >>> >>> Disappointed... >>> >> >> The issue is with old systems. We actually want to remove it from old >> installations, as it's EOLed and not maintained. userland-incorporation is >> not related to what packages are installed. Delivering python 2.6 in 2017? >> Who does do it? >> -- >> Best regards, >> Alexander Pyhalov, >> system administrator of Southern Federal University IT department _______________________________________________ oi-dev mailing list [email protected] https://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/oi-dev
