[gentoo-dev] Re: Packages pulling in python-3*, also they dont require it

[Duncan]

Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis posted on Tue, 23 Mar 2010 16:37:34
+0100 as excerpted:

> 2010-03-22 22:12:54 Jacob Godserv napisał(a):
>> On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 10:11, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
>> <Arfrever@g.o> wrote:
>> > 2010-03-20 01:51:44 Duncan napisał(a):
>> >> So let's just recognize that it's not a perfect situation, create a
>> >> news item saying that python-3 will soon (give a date) be unmasked,
>> >> and suggest that users not needing it may wish to package.mask it
>> >> themselves, with a link to documentation with specific instructions
>> >> and a bit more detail on why they might wish to mask it and under
>> >> what circumstances they might not.
>> >>
>> >> I'd suggest an unmasking date 30 days after the release of the news
>> >> item.
>> >
>> > Python 3 is not masked. The discussion is about stabilization.
>>
>> Duncan's comments still apply, though, right? What's against writing a
>> news item about stabilizing Python?
>
> There is already a thread about news item:
> http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/
msg_814e67764c17f88bde94f22e9a392e4f.xml

(link wrapped)

But that doesn't mention that users may wish to package.mask it, to avoid 
having it on their systems at all.  That's what /I/ was suggesting in 
/this/ thread, that a news item (presumably that one) should mention the 
package.mask option.

That really does seem to be about the best compromise, given the situation 
as described so well in this thread.

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman