1 |
On 2010.03.24 21:12, William Hubbs wrote: |
2 |
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 09:36:52PM +0100, Ben de Groot wrote: |
3 |
> > On 24 March 2010 21:25, William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote: |
4 |
> > > If we make it clear in the news item that python-3 cannot be used |
5 |
> as the |
6 |
> > > default python, so if users do not want it they should mask it, |
7 |
> we |
8 |
> have |
9 |
> > > done our job imho. In other words, this is just a matter of |
10 |
> informing |
11 |
> > > users. |
12 |
> > |
13 |
> > We agree that this is the minimum that should be done. But our |
14 |
> > Python lead stubbornly refuses to honor this reasonable request. |
15 |
> |
16 |
> On the other hand, I can see his point as well. The news item makes |
17 |
> it |
18 |
> very clear that python-3 cannot be the default python and that |
19 |
> python-2 |
20 |
> needs to be installed. |
21 |
> |
22 |
> It could be argued that he is just assuming that users are |
23 |
> intelligent |
24 |
> enough to figure out that they need to mask python-3 if they |
25 |
> do not want it on their systems. |
26 |
> |
27 |
> Basically this is a case of "how much hand-holding do we want to do"? |
28 |
> |
29 |
> William |
30 |
> |
31 |
> |
32 |
|
33 |
The case where Python-3 cannot be used as the default Python is |
34 |
transitory (it may be a long time). Should we advise users of stable to |
35 |
mask it, we will get a lot of pleas for help when Python-3 is required |
36 |
because many users will have forgotten all about package.mask |
37 |
|
38 |
In my view, its better to avoid these future unmasking issues as stable |
39 |
users tend to be very wary of unmasking things and let them have |
40 |
Python-3 unless they are already comfortable with the contents of /etc/ |
41 |
portage ... in which case they are not using stable anyway. |
42 |
|
43 |
-- |
44 |
Regards, |
45 |
|
46 |
Roy Bamford |
47 |
(Neddyseagoon) a member of |
48 |
gentoo-ops |
49 |
forum-mods |
50 |
trustees |