| 1 |
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 1:27 PM, Ben de Groot <yngwin@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 18 March 2010 20:24, Fabian Groffen <grobian@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On 18-03-2010 20:20:02 +0100, Thomas Sachau wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> There are 2 ways to fix this issue: |
| 5 |
>>> |
| 6 |
>>> -fix the dependency string for those packages (including the lines in distutils.eclass) |
| 7 |
>>> |
| 8 |
>>> or (since Arfrever claims current portage behaviour is wrong) |
| 9 |
>>> -change portage behaviour to be satisfied with a python slot and to not require other slots. |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
>> Since the last option will take time in any case, I guess the first |
| 12 |
>> option is the best to achieve the desired goal: make sure Python 3 stays |
| 13 |
>> as far away as possible from any system that doesn't need it. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> And the best way to do that is to package.mask it. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
The maintainer has chosen not to mask it in gentoo-x86, which means |
| 18 |
users are empowered to mask it locally and everyone who is complaining |
| 19 |
about getting python3 installed on their system should mask it |
| 20 |
locally. This is how users work around other defaults in the tree |
| 21 |
they don't agree with (USE flags, KEYWORDS, etc.) I don't get why |
| 22 |
this is a big deal at all or why people are unable to solve this |
| 23 |
themselves. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> Cheers, |
| 27 |
> -- |
| 28 |
> Ben de Groot |
| 29 |
> Gentoo Linux Qt project lead developer |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> |
Archives