Le 20/09/2009 02:31, Ryan Hill a écrit :
If not, when can
we drop support for old EAPIs? Your opinions please.
Let's drop it now. We've waited long enough. Portage with EAPI=2 has
been stable for more than a year.
Rémi
On Воскресенье 20 сентября 2009 11:47:30 Rémi Cardona wrote:
> Le 20/09/2009 02:31, Ryan Hill a écrit :
> > If not, when can
> > we drop support for old EAPIs? Your opinions please.
>
> Let's drop it now. We've waited long enough. Portage with EAPI=2 has
> been stable for more than a year.
>
> R
Alex Alexander wrote:
> *On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 23:21, Robert Bridge wrote:
>> So the question isn't SHOULD python-3 be stabilised, it's what will break if
>> it is surely?
>
> There seems to be a misunderstanding on what will happen if/when
> python 3 gets stabilized.
>
> The short answer is..
Ryan Hill wrote:
> (Yes, this has EAPI in the title, so that means everyone will chime in)
>
> I'd like to clarify and (eventually) set in stone our ideas of best practices
> when it comes to bumping EAPI for system packages. I was of the belief that
> we had decided that system packages should r
On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 13:37:46 +0300
Petteri Räty wrote:
> Ryan Hill wrote:
> > (Yes, this has EAPI in the title, so that means everyone will chime
> > in)
> >
> > I'd like to clarify and (eventually) set in stone our ideas of best
> > practices when it comes to bumping EAPI for system packages.
Olivier Crête wrote:
~arch is for testing ebuilds, not the upstream package
I'm pretty sure this isn't the case - at least not as cleanly as you
suggest. Certainly testing the ebuilds themselves is part of the reason
for having ~arch, but upstream readiness is part of it as well. If a
pa
Ryan Hill wrote:
So, should we always keep a working EAPI 0 version around? If not, when can
we drop support for old EAPIs? Your opinions please.
You might want to define what you mean by dropping support for old
EAPIs? Do you mean:
1. No longer ensuring that users who have pre-EAPI ver
On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 07:28:40 -0400
Richard Freeman wrote:
> I can see why package managers would benefit from fewer cases to
> support, however...
Doesn't make any difference to package managers. Support for old EAPIs
has to remain around indefinitely to uninstall things anyway. Also, the
cost's
On Sunday 20 September 2009 13:28:40 Richard Freeman wrote:
> Ryan Hill wrote:
> > So, should we always keep a working EAPI 0 version around? If not, when
> > can we drop support for old EAPIs? Your opinions please.
>
> You might want to define what you mean by dropping support for old
> EAPIs?
On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 19:09:38 +0200, Dirkjan Ochtman
wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 19:06, Alex Legler wrote:
>> What is the point of stabilizing it if users shouldn't use it as main
>> interpreter? Just leave it in ~arch until it can be safely used.
>
> Making it easily available so that peopl
On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 20:51:17 +0200, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
wrote:
> 2009-09-19 20:22:49 Tobias Klausmann napisał(a):
>> Hi!
>>
>> Aside from the remarks made by others (and speaking as someone
>> who maintains Python software), there is one reason for me to not
>> switch Python 3 to
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 2:42 AM, Alistair Bush wrote:
> >
> > Someone here want people install paludis? because when I've switched to
> > python 3.0 just out of curiosity, it broke totally that python written
> > package manager who is portage.
> > So another package manager was needed to re-inst
On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 08:55:00 +1200, Alistair Bush
wrote:
>> Stabilization of Python 3.1.* will be requested at the beginning of
>> november. There was a suggestion to create a news item which would
>> inform
>> users that temporarily they shouldn't switch to Python 3 as their main
>> interpret
Richard Freeman wrote:
> Olivier Crête wrote:
>>
>> ~arch is for testing ebuilds, not the upstream package
>>
>
> I'm pretty sure this isn't the case - at least not as cleanly as you
> suggest. Certainly testing the ebuilds themselves is part of the
> reason for having ~arch, but upstream readines
On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 00:41:32 +0200, Dawid Węgliński
wrote:
> On Sunday 20 of September 2009 00:32:28 Dale wrote:
>> >
>> > ~arch is for testing ebuilds, not the upstream package
>>
>> So it would be OK to mark something "stable" even tho portage itself
>> doesn't work with it? Sorry, this makes n
Jesús Guerrero wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 00:41:32 +0200, Dawid Węgliński
> wrote:
>
>> On Sunday 20 of September 2009 00:32:28 Dale wrote:
>>
~arch is for testing ebuilds, not the upstream package
>>> So it would be OK to mark something "stable" even tho portage itsel
2009-09-20 16:53:37 Jesús Guerrero napisał(a):
> On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 00:41:32 +0200, Dawid Węgliński
> wrote:
> > On Sunday 20 of September 2009 00:32:28 Dale wrote:
> >> >
> >> > ~arch is for testing ebuilds, not the upstream package
> >>
> >> So it would be OK to mark something "stable" even tho
On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 17:24:53 +0200, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
wrote:
> 2009-09-20 16:53:37 Jesús Guerrero napisał(a):
>> On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 00:41:32 +0200, Dawid Węgliński
>> wrote:
>> > On Sunday 20 of September 2009 00:32:28 Dale wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > ~arch is for testing ebuilds, n
2009-09-20 16:44:09 Jesús Guerrero napisał(a):
> On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 19:09:38 +0200, Dirkjan Ochtman
> wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 19:06, Alex Legler wrote:
> >> What is the point of stabilizing it if users shouldn't use it as main
> >> interpreter? Just leave it in ~arch until it can be s
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 9:16 PM, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
wrote:
> Some packages (whose older versions might be stable) might soon start
> requiring
> Python 3. Stabilization of these packages cannot be delayed due to the fact
> that some other packages don't work with Python 3.
>
Are
2009-09-20 17:56:46 Nirbheek Chauhan napisał(a):
> On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 9:16 PM, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
> wrote:
> > Some packages (whose older versions might be stable) might soon start
> > requiring
> > Python 3. Stabilization of these packages cannot be delayed due to the fact
On Sunday 20 September 2009, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> Some packages (whose older versions might be stable) might soon start
> requiring Python 3. Stabilization of these packages cannot be delayed
> due to the fact that some other packages don't work with Python 3.
Of course the
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> 2009-09-20 16:44:09 Jesús Guerrero napisał(a):
>> On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 19:09:38 +0200, Dirkjan Ochtman
>> wrote:
>>> On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 19:06, Alex Legler wrote:
What is the point of stabilizing it if users shouldn't use it as main
interp
2009-09-20 18:51:53 Robert Buchholz napisał(a):
> On Sunday 20 September 2009, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> > Some packages (whose older versions might be stable) might soon start
> > requiring Python 3. Stabilization of these packages cannot be delayed
> > due to the fact that some
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 9:37 PM, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
wrote:
> which depend on Python 3) wouldn't break any packages and wouldn't require
> to switch main Python interpreter to Python 3.
>
Package X (stable) requires python-2
Package Y (stable) requires python-3
=> User can't use
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 8:54 PM, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
wrote:
> 2009-09-20 16:53:37 Jesús Guerrero napisał(a):
>> # eselect python set 2
>> # emerge -s foo
>> File "/usr/bin/emerge", line 41
>> except PermissionDenied, e:
>> ^
>> SyntaxError: invalid
2009-09-20 19:25:55 Nirbheek Chauhan napisał(a):
> On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 9:37 PM, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
> wrote:
> > which depend on Python 3) wouldn't break any packages and wouldn't require
> > to switch main Python interpreter to Python 3.
> >
>
> Package X (stable) requires py
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 11:05 PM, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
wrote:
>> Package X (stable) requires python-2
>> Package Y (stable) requires python-3
>>
>> => User can't use both at the same time.
>
> Distribute/Setuptools will ensure that appropriate shebang is present in
> Python
> scrip
2009-09-20 19:30:54 Nirbheek Chauhan napisał(a):
> On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 8:54 PM, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
> wrote:
> > 2009-09-20 16:53:37 Jesús Guerrero napisał(a):
> >> # eselect python set 2
> >> # emerge -s foo
> >> File "/usr/bin/emerge", line 41
> >> except PermissionDeni
2009-09-20 19:47:28 Nirbheek Chauhan napisał(a):
> On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 11:05 PM, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
> wrote:
> >> Package X (stable) requires python-2
> >> Package Y (stable) requires python-3
> >>
> >> => User can't use both at the same time.
> >
> > Distribute/Setuptools wil
Attached is a diff of the current and the prospective perl-module.class.
Please review.
Thanks.
--- perl-module.eclass
+++ perl-module.eclass
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-# Copyright 1999-2004 Gentoo Foundation
+# Copyright 1999-2009 Gentoo Foundation
# Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public
Many want it - very few help. That's perl-5.10 in Gentoo.
I am trying to outline the changes in the perl-experimental overlay. And
if there are no objections / better ideas, that will go into the tree.
After that I'll minimize my perl work if no more people join to help.
So these are the change
Alexey Shvetsov wrote:
> On Воскресенье 20 сентября 2009 11:47:30 Rémi Cardona wrote:
>
>> Le 20/09/2009 02:31, Ryan Hill a écrit :
>>
>>> If not, when can
>>> we drop support for old EAPIs? Your opinions please.
>>>
>> Let's drop it now. We've waited long enough. Portage with EAPI=
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 11:57 PM, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
wrote:
> There is a difference between Python scripts and Python modules.
>
Yes, I'm well aware of the difference between them.
[snip]
> Python modules shouldn't have shebang. Python modules are intended to
> be imported from
2009-09-20 20:46:17 Nirbheek Chauhan napisał(a):
> On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 11:57 PM, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
> wrote:
> > There is a difference between Python scripts and Python modules.
> >
>
> Yes, I'm well aware of the difference between them.
>
> [snip]
> > Python modules shouldn
Sebastian Pipping posted on Sun, 13 Sep 2009 22:00:03 +0200 as excerpted:
> Duncan wrote:
>> [L]et's get some context here. layman's no difficulty at all, really,
>> when compared to the ordinary stuff we expect Gentoo users to do all
>> the time.
>
> I think you forget about the learning curve:
Petteri Räty wrote:
> Every Gentoo system where world or system includes deps like
>> =dev-lang/python-2.5 will get it installed because in this case Portage
> will automatically update to the latest slot at least according to my
> quick research. I don't like putting stuff to users systems that th
Dawid Węgliński said:
> You mix it up. Portage works with python 3.1. If an user switches to python
> 3.1 as the main interpreter, it's possible that his own scripts won't work.
> Marking it stable sometine in november give's some time to ebuilds
> maintainers to fix their python based apps jus
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis said:
> I agree. But Python 3.1 doesn't have more issues than Python 2.6, so
> the stabilization is reasonable.
And how about all of the packages in the tree that use python? You are
missing that huge part. That's like saying libfoo works absolutely
great, bu
Mark Loeser wrote:
> Dawid Węgliński said:
>
>> You mix it up. Portage works with python 3.1. If an user switches to python
>> 3.1 as the main interpreter, it's possible that his own scripts won't work.
>> Marking it stable sometine in november give's some time to ebuilds
>> maintainers to f
The attached list notes all of the packages that were added or removed
from the tree, for the week ending 2009-09-20 23h59 UTC.
Removals:
dev-ruby/misen 2009-09-14 17:54:30 graaff
dev-ruby/dpklib 2009-09-14 17:55:09 graaff
games-arcade/xkobo
Dear friends,
I have been reading your postings to the mailing lists of the Gentoo
Community. I have really enjoyed reading about your collaborative
creative activities and your perspectives on the free/open source software.
My name is Tiebing Shi and I am a Ph.D. student at Queen's University i
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 06:20:41PM -0400, Mark Loeser wrote:
> Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis said:
> > I agree. But Python 3.1 doesn't have more issues than Python 2.6, so
> > the stabilization is reasonable.
>
> And how about all of the packages in the tree that use python? You are
> miss
Duncan wrote:
> Sebastian Pipping posted on Sun, 13 Sep 2009 22:00:03 +0200 as excerpted:
>
>> Duncan wrote:
>>> [L]et's get some context here. layman's no difficulty at all, really,
>>> when compared to the ordinary stuff we expect Gentoo users to do all
>>> the time.
>> I think you forget about
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello,
I have masked dev-python/optik for removal in 30 days as it is
bundled with >=dev-lang/python-2.4 and only needed with
(And, since Python 2.3, Optik is now part of the Python standard
library, under the name optparse)
Best regards,
Brian Harring posted on Sun, 20 Sep 2009 18:17:35 -0700 as excerpted:
> Basically what gain is there? Stabilizing it at this point comes off as
> "whee, we have py3k stabilized! Now go mask it on all of your boxes
> since not a lot of the useful things play nice with it right now!"
I'm on ~arch
On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 15:07:23 +0200
Patrick Lauer wrote:
> On Sunday 20 September 2009 13:28:40 Richard Freeman wrote:
> > Ryan Hill wrote:
> > > So, should we always keep a working EAPI 0 version around? If not, when
> > > can we drop support for old EAPIs? Your opinions please.
> >
> > You mi
47 matches
Mail list logo
