| 1 |
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote: |
| 2 |
> 2010-03-26 16:40:37 Brian Harring napisał(a): |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> There really isn't a precedent since upgrades of this sort typically |
| 5 |
>> either have extremely locked down deps, or just plain don't happen |
| 6 |
>> till the vast majority of depndencies are updated. If in doubt, look |
| 7 |
>> at the past python upgrades- they've been delayed till all of the |
| 8 |
>> major consumers played nice w/ the targeted python version. |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
> Main active version of Python was automatically updated during previous Python |
| 11 |
> upgrades, but it's not updated during installation of Python 3.1. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
As a user, I still think this could turn into a real mess. I think |
| 16 |
there will be quite a few that will see python being updated, run |
| 17 |
python-updater and switch it to the new python. At that point, it is |
| 18 |
going to hit the fan. I know because this is what I always do. News |
| 19 |
item or not, when python gets updated, I run python-updater and make |
| 20 |
sure it is selected. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
If this somehow breaks portage, which it shouldn't since apparently |
| 23 |
portage is fine with the new python, then it is going to really hit the fan. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Me, I'm going to make SURE nothing changes on my system. Then I'm going |
| 26 |
to sit back and see what happens, good or bad. I can't imagine anything |
| 27 |
good but I sure can imagine bad things. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Dale |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
:-) :-) |
Archives