Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Dale <rdalek1967@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages pulling in python-3*, also they dont require it
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 07:16:17
Message-Id: 4BA324A5.1080203@gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Packages pulling in python-3*, also they dont require it by Alec Warner
1 Alec Warner wrote:
2 > On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 1:27 PM, Ben de Groot<yngwin@g.o> wrote:
3 >
4 >> On 18 March 2010 20:24, Fabian Groffen<grobian@g.o> wrote:
5 >>
6 >>> On 18-03-2010 20:20:02 +0100, Thomas Sachau wrote:
7 >>>
8 >>>> There are 2 ways to fix this issue:
9 >>>>
10 >>>> -fix the dependency string for those packages (including the lines in distutils.eclass)
11 >>>>
12 >>>> or (since Arfrever claims current portage behaviour is wrong)
13 >>>> -change portage behaviour to be satisfied with a python slot and to not require other slots.
14 >>>>
15 >>> Since the last option will take time in any case, I guess the first
16 >>> option is the best to achieve the desired goal: make sure Python 3 stays
17 >>> as far away as possible from any system that doesn't need it.
18 >>>
19 >> And the best way to do that is to package.mask it.
20 >>
21 > The maintainer has chosen not to mask it in gentoo-x86, which means
22 > users are empowered to mask it locally and everyone who is complaining
23 > about getting python3 installed on their system should mask it
24 > locally. This is how users work around other defaults in the tree
25 > they don't agree with (USE flags, KEYWORDS, etc.) I don't get why
26 > this is a big deal at all or why people are unable to solve this
27 > themselves.
28 >
29 >
30 >> Cheers,
31 >> --
32 >> Ben de Groot
33 >> Gentoo Linux Qt project lead developer
34 >>
35 >>
36 >>
37
38 I think this is because people that use Gentoo do so because it doesn't
39 install things they don't need. Why install a package that is used by
40 no other package? It's pointless.
41
42 I would also add, if it gets installed and is used by no other package,
43 --depclean should remove it. Putting it in package.mask locally is sort
44 of silly in my opinion. There will come a day, maybe way off in the
45 future, that something will need it. Then you have to edit the file
46 again so portage can install it.
47
48 This just seems to be adding either more work or unneeded packages.
49
50 This is a users $0.02 worth.
51
52 Dale
53
54 :-) :-)

Replies