On 2020-09-04 09:22, Rich Freeman wrote:
>
> Current Gentoo policy:
>
> ...if the changes are likely to cause problems for end users."
If you're willing to ignore the user reports of problems, and ignore the
mailing list threads telling you that it will cause problems, and avoid
running any tes
On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 9:06 AM Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>
> It's easy to say "well this is not an issue because it can be solved by
> ..."
>
> If it's easy, get it added to the PMS and I'll agree with you.
>
Current Gentoo policy:
"Maintainers must not assume that dynamic dependencies will be app
On Fri, 4 Sep 2020 09:06:46 -0400
Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 2020-09-04 08:54, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> >
> > py37 will (*) still be installed as it cannot be depcleaned because
> > of 1. emerge won't fail since deps are satisfied.
> >
> >
> > (*) or rather should, but I think the only case t
On 2020-09-04 08:54, Alexis Ballier wrote:
>
> py37 will (*) still be installed as it cannot be depcleaned because of
> 1. emerge won't fail since deps are satisfied.
>
>
> (*) or rather should, but I think the only case that matters is a valid
> system state where noone forced uninstall of a ne
On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 14:17:06 -0400
Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 2020-09-03 12:38, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> >
> > if some upgrade wants a package with unmatched deps (e.g. not
> > installed at all or py38 usedep not satisfied), $PM will surely try
> > to satisfy it by installing an ebuild. I don't
On 2020-09-03 12:38, Alexis Ballier wrote:
>
> if some upgrade wants a package with unmatched deps (e.g. not installed
> at all or py38 usedep not satisfied), $PM will surely try to satisfy
> it by installing an ebuild. I don't think PMS specifies this, nor should
> it.
>
It's not an upgrade per
On Wed, 2 Sep 2020 15:00:27 -0400
Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 2020-09-02 14:08, Andreas Sturmlechner wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 2 September 2020 19:42:33 CEST Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> >> New USE flags generally change dependencies (as is the case here),
> >> so a new revision ensures that people
On 2020-09-02 14:08, Andreas Sturmlechner wrote:
> On Wednesday, 2 September 2020 19:42:33 CEST Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>> New USE flags generally change dependencies (as is the case here), so a
>> new revision ensures that people are forced to install the ebuild that
>> supports python-3.8. Otherw
On Wednesday, 2 September 2020 19:42:33 CEST Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> New USE flags generally change dependencies (as is the case here), so a
> new revision ensures that people are forced to install the ebuild that
> supports python-3.8. Otherwise, you will eventually find a lot of people
> stuck
On 2020-09-02 13:23, Sam James wrote:
>
> Please request stabilisation of your Python 3.8+ changes at the 30 days
> point, or earlier if it’s a trivial revbump
> (as new Python targets are equivalent to new USE flags, there is no real need
> for a revbump unless doing other tidying
> whilst ther
> On 1 Sep 2020, at 12:02, Michał Górny wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> [snip]
> Python 3.8 is planned to become the default on 2020-12-01.
>
Note that this means we need to keep in mind stabilisation of Python 3.8+
supporting-packages going forward.
Please request stabilisation of your Python 3.8+
On Tue, 2020-09-01 at 08:06 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 7:02 AM Michał Górny wrote:
> > QA reports provide a list [2] and a graph [3] of packages needing
> > porting.
>
> These lists would be far more useful if they actually listed the
> maintainer(s) of each package. The
вт, 1 сент. 2020 г. в 13:06, Rich Freeman :
>
> On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 7:02 AM Michał Górny wrote:
> >
> > QA reports provide a list [2] and a graph [3] of packages needing
> > porting.
>
> These lists would be far more useful if they actually listed the
> maintainer(s) of each package. Then devs
On Tue, 2020-09-01 at 08:06 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 7:02 AM Michał Górny wrote:
> > QA reports provide a list [2] and a graph [3] of packages needing
> > porting.
>
> These lists would be far more useful if they actually listed the
> maintainer(s) of each package. The
On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 7:02 AM Michał Górny wrote:
>
> QA reports provide a list [2] and a graph [3] of packages needing
> porting.
These lists would be far more useful if they actually listed the
maintainer(s) of each package. Then devs could just grep to discover
if any of their packages need
Hello,
Following the timeline published earlier (and copied to [1]), Python 3.7
deprecation starts today. All developers are requested to install
Python 3.8 and start testing their packages against it. While at it,
testing against Python 3.9 would also be welcome.
QA reports provide a list [2]
16 matches
Mail list logo
