| 1 |
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 4:08 PM, Dale <rdalek1967@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote: |
| 3 |
>> |
| 4 |
>> 2010-03-26 16:40:37 Brian Harring napisał(a): |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>>> |
| 7 |
>>> There really isn't a precedent since upgrades of this sort typically |
| 8 |
>>> either have extremely locked down deps, or just plain don't happen |
| 9 |
>>> till the vast majority of depndencies are updated. If in doubt, look |
| 10 |
>>> at the past python upgrades- they've been delayed till all of the |
| 11 |
>>> major consumers played nice w/ the targeted python version. |
| 12 |
>>> |
| 13 |
>> |
| 14 |
>> Main active version of Python was automatically updated during previous |
| 15 |
>> Python |
| 16 |
>> upgrades, but it's not updated during installation of Python 3.1. |
| 17 |
>> |
| 18 |
>> |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> As a user, I still think this could turn into a real mess. I think there |
| 21 |
> will be quite a few that will see python being updated, run python-updater |
| 22 |
> and switch it to the new python. At that point, it is going to hit the fan. |
| 23 |
> I know because this is what I always do. News item or not, when python |
| 24 |
> gets updated, I run python-updater and make sure it is selected. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
My assumption here is that eselect-python will not let you select v3 |
| 27 |
as your python version without some prodding (eg setting stupid |
| 28 |
environment variables or similar.) |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> If this somehow breaks portage, which it shouldn't since apparently portage |
| 32 |
> is fine with the new python, then it is going to really hit the fan. |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> Me, I'm going to make SURE nothing changes on my system. Then I'm going to |
| 35 |
> sit back and see what happens, good or bad. I can't imagine anything good |
| 36 |
> but I sure can imagine bad things. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
Such faith ;) |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
> Dale |
| 42 |
> |
| 43 |
> :-) :-) |
| 44 |
> |
| 45 |
> |
Archives