| 1 |
On Sunday 20 of September 2009 00:32:28 Dale wrote: |
| 2 |
> > |
| 3 |
> > ~arch is for testing ebuilds, not the upstream package |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> So it would be OK to mark something "stable" even tho portage itself |
| 6 |
> doesn't work with it? Sorry, this makes no sense to me. I run stable |
| 7 |
> for the most part and having a package that portage depends on that is |
| 8 |
> not stable just sounds a little like putting the cart before the horse. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> See some of the other replies as to why this is a not so good idea. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Dale |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> :-) :-) |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
You mix it up. Portage works with python 3.1. If an user switches to python |
| 17 |
3.1 as the main interpreter, it's possible that his own scripts won't work. |
| 18 |
Marking it stable sometine in november give's some time to ebuilds |
| 19 |
maintainers to fix their python based apps just like it's done with gcc |
| 20 |
stabilization. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
So marking python 3.1 stable and telling users "port your own apps/scripts to |
| 23 |
current python" sounds good to me. |
Archives