1 |
On 27.06.2011 19:00, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: |
2 |
> On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 17:53, Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
>> I like the ruby approach for the reason that it doesn't require users to |
4 |
>> run update scripts like python-updater. |
5 |
> |
6 |
> Sure, but if that means the developers now have to bump every package |
7 |
> in the tree when a new version of Python comes out, I'm not sure |
8 |
> that's the best trade-off. |
9 |
> |
10 |
|
11 |
And why can't this be handled by the eclass? If the ebuild is able to |
12 |
specify it supports >=3.0 meaning it's expected that future versions |
13 |
work then the eclass can make the new values available through IUSE when |
14 |
new python versions are out and ebuilds don't require any changes. |
15 |
|
16 |
Regards, |
17 |
Petteri |