| 1 |
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 09:36:52PM +0100, Ben de Groot wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 24 March 2010 21:25, William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > If we make it clear in the news item that python-3 cannot be used as the |
| 4 |
> > default python, so if users do not want it they should mask it, we have |
| 5 |
> > done our job imho. In other words, this is just a matter of informing |
| 6 |
> > users. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> We agree that this is the minimum that should be done. But our |
| 9 |
> Python lead stubbornly refuses to honor this reasonable request. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Not so cheerful, |
| 12 |
> -- |
| 13 |
> Ben de Groot |
| 14 |
> Gentoo Linux Qt project lead developer |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Another user here. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Couldn't this issue with the news item be resolved by wording it differently? |
| 20 |
The way I've understood the python maintainers is that they don't want the news item to recommend masking it. So couldn't a compromise be phrasing along the lines of "... it is safe to mask python-3* at the moment..." and perhaps also "... a news item will be released when python-3* will become necessary". |
| 21 |
To be honest I don't think the last bit is quite as relevant if people do pay heed to the fact that python-3* can be masked without any consequence. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Can all parties agree to something of this sort? |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
Zeerak Waseem |
Archives