George Prowse posted on Fri, 26 Mar 2010 17:53:31 + as excerpted:
> On 26/03/2010 17:43, Dale wrote:
>> It's not faith, its reality. There will be some people that don't
>> subscribe to this list that will do what is above. This IS the reason I
>> subscribed to this list. I wanted to know what
William Hubbs posted on Wed, 24 Mar 2010 13:03:34 -0500 as excerpted:
> If users do not want python-3 on
> their systems, that is what /etc/portage/package.mask is for.
I think pretty much everyone agrees with that. What we're debating is
whether the stabling news item should specifically menti
2010-03-23 20:57:33 Jonathan Callen napisał(a):
> On 03/23/2010 03:13 PM, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> > I'm attaching updated news item, which will be committed soon.
> >
>
> A couple grammar issues:
>
> -modules, which support both Python 2 and Python 3, are installed for both
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/23/2010 03:13 PM, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> I'm attaching updated news item, which will be committed soon.
>
A couple grammar issues:
- -modules, which support both Python 2 and Python 3, are installed for both
- -active ver
On 03/10/10 11:36, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
2010-03-08 22:28:16 William Hubbs napisał(a):
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 04:19:36PM -0800, Zac Medico wrote:
No, it won't. To prove it, I've just tested with a stable stage3
containing portage-2.1.7.x. Here are the steps:
1) extract st
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 9:04 PM, Jacob Godserv wrote:
> The problem here, I think, is everyone has their opinion about what it
> means for something to go stable, and I haven't seen more than one or
> two references to what has been predetermined as policy for
> stabilization. I think we should do
The problem here, I think, is everyone has their opinion about what it
means for something to go stable, and I haven't seen more than one or
two references to what has been predetermined as policy for
stabilization. I think we should do a little less debating over
personal opinions (which is a "hot
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 02:24:46AM +0100, Ben de Groot wrote:
> On 11 March 2010 01:25, William Hubbs wrote:
> > ??If someone has a package that truly works with either python 2 or 3,
> > ??what is the harm in automatically pulling in python 3 and installing
> > ??the package for both python 2 and
On 11 March 2010 01:25, William Hubbs wrote:
> If someone has a package that truly works with either python 2 or 3,
> what is the harm in automatically pulling in python 3 and installing
> the package for both python 2 and 3?
>
> As long as pulling in python-3 doesn't change the system's defau
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 11:43:04PM +0100, Ben de Groot wrote:
> On 10 March 2010 18:36, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
> wrote:
> > Almost everybody has at least 1 package installed which supports both
> > Python 2
> > and Python 3 and depends on dev-lang/python without version specification
On 10 March 2010 18:36, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
wrote:
> Almost everybody has at least 1 package installed which supports both Python 2
> and Python 3 and depends on dev-lang/python without version specification,
> so Python 3 would be pulled into dependency graph,
The problem is that
2010-03-08 22:28:16 William Hubbs napisał(a):
> On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 04:19:36PM -0800, Zac Medico wrote:
> > No, it won't. To prove it, I've just tested with a stable stage3
> > containing portage-2.1.7.x. Here are the steps:
> >
> > 1) extract stable stage3 and chroot into it
> > 2) mkdir /etc
Hi,
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis :
> All problems, which were blocking stabilization of Python 3, have
> been fixed. Stabilization of Python 3.1.2 is currently scheduled on
> 2010-04-19. I'm attaching the news item for Python 3.1.
Will add my comments for the whole thread here:
As far
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 04:19:36PM -0800, Zac Medico wrote:
> No, it won't. To prove it, I've just tested with a stable stage3
> containing portage-2.1.7.x. Here are the steps:
>
> 1) extract stable stage3 and chroot into it
> 2) mkdir /etc/portage && echo "dev-lang/python ~*" >>
> /etc/portage/pa
Matti Bickel dixit (2010-03-08, 10:39):
> >> 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 (unl
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
>>
Petteri Räty posted on Sun, 07 Mar 2010 20:25:07 +0200 as excerpted:
> n my opinion python-3 should go stable when there's enough ebuilds
> needing it as a dependency. It doesn't need to nowhere near 90% of
> python packages in the tree.
Indeed.
Given that it's slotted and (barring bugs) won't i
On Sun, Mar 07, 2010 at 09:08:14PM -0600, Ryan Hill wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 12:11:47 -0500
> Mark Loeser wrote:
>
> > > Has QA given their blessing to this?
> >
> > Absolutely not. Its actually the opposite. Until 90+% of the tree just
> > works with the new version of python, it should no
On Sun, 7 Mar 2010 12:11:47 -0500
Mark Loeser wrote:
> > Has QA given their blessing to this?
>
> Absolutely not. Its actually the opposite. Until 90+% of the tree just
> works with the new version of python, it should not be stabilized. The
> stable tree should all Just Work together. Stabi
On 03/05/2010 11:26 AM, Duncan wrote:
> Zac Medico posted on Fri, 05 Mar 2010 03:24:29 -0800 as excerpted:
>
>> On 03/05/2010 03:09 AM, Maciej Mrozowski wrote:
>>> Now on more serious note, ideally python could be treated just like any
>>> other non-leaf package (in dependency tree), just like lib
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 13:37:28 +0100
Ben de Groot wrote:
> On 5 March 2010 12:24, Zac Medico wrote:
> > It won't be pulled in by sys-apps/portage dependencies which look
> > like this:
> >
> > || ( dev-lang/python:2.8 dev-lang/python:2.7 dev-lang/python:2.6
> >>=dev-lang/python-3 )
> >
> > If you
Zac Medico posted on Fri, 05 Mar 2010 03:24:29 -0800 as excerpted:
> On 03/05/2010 03:09 AM, Maciej Mrozowski wrote:
>> Now on more serious note, ideally python could be treated just like any
>> other non-leaf package (in dependency tree), just like library. In such
>> case it's completely reasona
Ben de Groot posted on Thu, 04 Mar 2010 23:56:46 +0100 as excerpted:
> Personally I am recommending people to locally mask python-3*. I think
> we should consider to add it to our package.mask, unless we can find
> some other solution.
>
> I am not against it being marked stable, but I am against
23 matches
Mail list logo
