1 |
El vie, 26-03-2010 a las 05:10 -0700, Zac Medico escribió: |
2 |
> > Hello |
3 |
> > |
4 |
> > Maybe I have misunderstood anything (since I don't know much about |
5 |
> > python stuff) but, what would occur if I forget to mask python-3 and |
6 |
> > don't run python-updater. My plans would be to try to delay |
7 |
> > python-updater running until I switch to use python3, because some |
8 |
> > machines I maintain are quite old and takes some time to re-emerge all |
9 |
> > python apps :-/ |
10 |
> > |
11 |
> > Thanks for the info |
12 |
> |
13 |
> If you don't want to run python-updater, then you'd better mask |
14 |
> python3 and uninstall it. Otherwise, you'll encounter build failures |
15 |
> due to new packages trying to build for python3 when their |
16 |
> dependencies haven't been rebuilt with python3 support. There's no |
17 |
> harm done since it's easy to mask and uninstall python3 at this |
18 |
> point, thereby avoiding the need to run python-updater. |
19 |
|
20 |
Thanks a lot Zac for the explanation |
21 |
|
22 |
Arfrever, could this be noted in news item? I mean, since you are |
23 |
clearly in favor of python3 stabilization, you have prepared news item |
24 |
and *seems to me* that you prefer to not suggest or "recommend" its |
25 |
local masking in that news item, maybe you could find a way to write |
26 |
news informing users that they will need mask new python if they prefer |
27 |
to postpone python-updater run (since I think some users, like me, will |
28 |
prefer to not rebuild lots of packages until most of them will work with |
29 |
newer python), that way it wouldn't "sound" as much like a "generic |
30 |
recommendation" but more like a needed step for users not wanting to run |
31 |
python-updater yet (that would be like a "special case" common enough to |
32 |
take care of it). |
33 |
|
34 |
Would it be ok for you? Maybe that way most of us could reach a |
35 |
consensus on this :-) |
36 |
|
37 |
Thanks a lot |