On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 10:02:44 -0500
Dale wrote:
> Because in my opinion, portage is the first thing in line to keep a
> system sane. Installing packages that are not needed means that
> portage fails on that. So in your example, portage fails to do its
> due diligence and it falls to the users
Alistair Bush wrote:
Zac Medico wrote:
I think what most people want is for portage not to pull in a package
that nothing uses. I'm not a dev nor a programmer but I have yet to see
any good reason for installing something that is not being used. It's
not being tested to see if it is stable. I
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
2010-03-19 11:13:48 Dale napisał(a):
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 04:23:31 -0500
Dale wrote:
It's being installed because it's a dependency of something you use.
Replace Python with any other library and we wouldn't
2010-03-19 11:13:48 Dale napisał(a):
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 04:23:31 -0500
> > Dale wrote:
> >
> >>> It's being installed because it's a dependency of something you use.
> >>>
> >>> Replace Python with any other library and we wouldn't be having this
> >>> discussion.
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 10:01:05AM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 02:56:08 -0700
> Brian Harring wrote:
> > > We are waiting on ABI dependencies (and extended support for
> > > multiple ABIs in package manager), which will provide some needed
> > > functionality.
> >
> > You
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 04:23:31 -0500
Dale wrote:
It's being installed because it's a dependency of something you use.
Replace Python with any other library and we wouldn't be having this
discussion.
OK. Right now, as you type this, what package depends on pyt
On 03/19/2010 01:52 AM, Dale wrote:
> I think what most people want is for portage not to pull in a package
> that nothing uses. I'm not a dev nor a programmer but I have yet to see
> any good reason for installing something that is not being used. It's
> not being tested to see if it is stable.
On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 02:56:08 -0700
Brian Harring wrote:
> > We are waiting on ABI dependencies (and extended support for
> > multiple ABIs in package manager), which will provide some needed
> > functionality.
>
> You can do it now w/out waiting on ABI dependencies- I'm not saying
> the dependen
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 10:55:03AM +0100, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
wrote:
> 2010-03-19 10:39:07 Petteri Räty napisał(a):
> > On 19.3.2010 11.35, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I can add "python2" USE flag (enabled by default) to some versions of
> > > dev-l
2010-03-19 10:39:07 Petteri Räty napisał(a):
> On 19.3.2010 11.35, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
>
> >
> > I can add "python2" USE flag (enabled by default) to some versions of
> > dev-lang/python. With USE="-python2", Python 2 will not be required and
> > Python 3 will be set as mai
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 04:23:31AM -0500, Dale wrote:
> OK. Right now, as you type this, what package depends on python-3 and
> won't work with python-2? Anything at all? If it is nothing, then why
> install it?
To some degree it's the users choice which python version they choose
to settle
On 19.3.2010 11.35, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
>
> I can add "python2" USE flag (enabled by default) to some versions of
> dev-lang/python. With USE="-python2", Python 2 will not be required and
> Python 3 will be set as main active version of Python.
>
You should move to the sa
2010-03-19 10:23:31 Dale napisał(a):
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 03:54:28 -0500
> > Dale wrote:
> >
> >> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 23:17:17 +0100
> >>> Ben de Groot wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> Because it is extremely useless to the
On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 04:23:31 -0500
Dale wrote:
> > It's being installed because it's a dependency of something you use.
> >
> > Replace Python with any other library and we wouldn't be having this
> > discussion.
>
> OK. Right now, as you type this, what package depends on python-3
> and won't w
> Zac Medico wrote:
>
> I think what most people want is for portage not to pull in a package
> that nothing uses. I'm not a dev nor a programmer but I have yet to see
> any good reason for installing something that is not being used. It's
> not being tested to see if it is stable. It would hav
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 03:54:28 -0500
Dale wrote:
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 23:17:17 +0100
Ben de Groot wrote:
Because it is extremely useless to the great majority of users.
Most packages in the tree are useless to the gre
On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 03:54:28 -0500
Dale wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 23:17:17 +0100
> > Ben de Groot wrote:
> >
> >> Because it is extremely useless to the great majority of users.
> >>
> > Most packages in the tree are useless to the great majority of
> > use
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 23:17:17 +0100
Ben de Groot wrote:
Because it is extremely useless to the great majority of users.
Most packages in the tree are useless to the great majority of users.
Which is why most users don't install everything. I have about 1
Zac Medico wrote:
On 03/19/2010 12:15 AM, Dale wrote:
I think this is because people that use Gentoo do so because it doesn't
install things they don't need. Why install a package that is used by
no other package? It's pointless.
I would also add, if it gets installed and is used by no ot
On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 23:17:17 +0100
Ben de Groot wrote:
> Because it is extremely useless to the great majority of users.
Most packages in the tree are useless to the great majority of users.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On 03/19/2010 12:15 AM, Dale wrote:
> I think this is because people that use Gentoo do so because it doesn't
> install things they don't need. Why install a package that is used by
> no other package? It's pointless.
>
> I would also add, if it gets installed and is used by no other package,
>
Alec Warner wrote:
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 1:27 PM, Ben de Groot wrote:
On 18 March 2010 20:24, Fabian Groffen wrote:
On 18-03-2010 20:20:02 +0100, Thomas Sachau wrote:
There are 2 ways to fix this issue:
-fix the dependency string for those packages (including the lines i
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 1:27 PM, Ben de Groot wrote:
> On 18 March 2010 20:24, Fabian Groffen wrote:
>> On 18-03-2010 20:20:02 +0100, Thomas Sachau wrote:
>>> There are 2 ways to fix this issue:
>>>
>>> -fix the dependency string for those packages (including the lines in
>>> distutils.eclass)
>
On 18 March 2010 21:53, Doktor Notor wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 21:27:50 +0100
> Ben de Groot wrote:
>
>> > Since the last option will take time in any case, I guess the first
>> > option is the best to achieve the desired goal: make sure Python 3
>> > stays as far away as possible from any sys
On 03/18/10 21:53, Doktor Notor wrote:
> Why on earth would you mask a working
> package with extremely active maintainer in CVS
Upstream stability is unequel Gentoo stability.
Sebastian
On 03/18/2010 10:00 PM, Petteri Räty wrote:
>> And do you want to add a special rule to portage just for the special case
>> of python instead of the
>> ebuilds/eclasses having the issue?
>>
>
> What issue is there with ebuilds/eclasses? Both should reflect the deps
> as well as can be done with
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 09:13:01PM +0100, Thomas Sachau wrote:
> On 03/18/2010 08:55 PM, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> > 2010-03-18 20:47:35 Thomas Sachau napisał(a):
> >> On 03/18/2010 08:33 PM, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> >>> 2010-03-18 20:20:02 Thomas Sachau napis
On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 23:00:56 +0200
Petteri Räty wrote:
> >> Here's how we could change Portage behavior for pulling new slots
> >> that are not strictly required:
> >>
> >> - for packages in the world file install as soon as available
> >>
> >> - for dependencies install the new slot if everything
On 03/18/2010 10:21 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
> On 03/18/2010 09:02 PM, Petteri Räty wrote:
>> On 03/18/2010 09:43 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
>>>
>>> So my vote goes for changing the dependency strings for affected packages.
>>>
>>
>> Here's some thoughts on the matter:
>>
>> - dev-lang/python is corr
On 03/18/2010 10:10 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 22:02:38 +0200
> Petteri Räty wrote:
>> Here's how we could change Portage behavior for pulling new slots that
>> are not strictly required:
>>
>> - for packages in the world file install as soon as available
>>
>> - for dependen
On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 21:27:50 +0100
Ben de Groot wrote:
> > Since the last option will take time in any case, I guess the first
> > option is the best to achieve the desired goal: make sure Python 3
> > stays as far away as possible from any system that doesn't need it.
>
> And the best way to do
On 18 March 2010 20:24, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> On 18-03-2010 20:20:02 +0100, Thomas Sachau wrote:
>> There are 2 ways to fix this issue:
>>
>> -fix the dependency string for those packages (including the lines in
>> distutils.eclass)
>>
>> or (since Arfrever claims current portage behaviour is w
On 03/18/2010 09:02 PM, Petteri Räty wrote:
> On 03/18/2010 09:43 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
>>
>> So my vote goes for changing the dependency strings for affected packages.
>>
>
> Here's some thoughts on the matter:
>
> - dev-lang/python is correct if the package works with all python
> versions i
On 03/18/2010 08:55 PM, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> 2010-03-18 20:47:35 Thomas Sachau napisał(a):
>> On 03/18/2010 08:33 PM, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
>>> 2010-03-18 20:20:02 Thomas Sachau napisał(a):
Currently, some packages just depend on "dev-lang/python".
On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 22:02:38 +0200
Petteri Räty wrote:
> Here's how we could change Portage behavior for pulling new slots that
> are not strictly required:
>
> - for packages in the world file install as soon as available
>
> - for dependencies install the new slot if everything works with the
On 03/18/2010 09:43 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote:
>
> So my vote goes for changing the dependency strings for affected packages.
>
Here's some thoughts on the matter:
- dev-lang/python is correct if the package works with all python
versions in tree
- in general we want new slots of packages like g
2010-03-18 20:47:35 Thomas Sachau napisał(a):
> On 03/18/2010 08:33 PM, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> > 2010-03-18 20:20:02 Thomas Sachau napisał(a):
> >> Currently, some packages just depend on "dev-lang/python". Arfrever claims
> >> it to be right
> >
> > It's correct only for pa
On 03/18/2010 08:33 PM, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> 2010-03-18 20:20:02 Thomas Sachau napisał(a):
>> Currently, some packages just depend on "dev-lang/python". Arfrever claims
>> it to be right
>
> It's correct only for packages (e.g. dev-python/setuptools), which support all
> v
On 03/18/2010 08:28 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 20:20:02 +0100
> Thomas Sachau wrote:
>> -change portage behaviour to be satisfied with a python slot and to
>> not require other slots.
>
> But then you'll never get new slots for the majority of dependencies
> where you do usu
2010-03-18 20:20:02 Thomas Sachau napisał(a):
> Currently, some packages just depend on "dev-lang/python". Arfrever claims it
> to be right
It's correct only for packages (e.g. dev-python/setuptools), which support all
versions of Python (including Python 3).
> Arfrever claims current portage be
On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 20:20:02 +0100
Thomas Sachau wrote:
> -change portage behaviour to be satisfied with a python slot and to
> not require other slots.
But then you'll never get new slots for the majority of dependencies
where you do usually want the newest version. If Portage were to take
exist
On 18-03-2010 20:20:02 +0100, Thomas Sachau wrote:
> There are 2 ways to fix this issue:
>
> -fix the dependency string for those packages (including the lines in
> distutils.eclass)
>
> or (since Arfrever claims current portage behaviour is wrong)
> -change portage behaviour to be satisfied wit
Hi,
i would like to see a discussion and, if needed, a decision on the following
topic:
Currently, some packages just depend on "dev-lang/python". Arfrever claims it
to be right, but this
dependency does pull in python-3*, even if the package does not require it (or
does not even work
with it)
43 matches
Mail list logo
