| 1 |
On 03/26/2010 02:02 AM, Pacho Ramos wrote: |
| 2 |
> El jue, 25-03-2010 a las 11:37 -0400, Richard Freeman escribió: |
| 3 |
>> On 03/24/2010 11:47 PM, Joshua Saddler wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> Even then, it'll likely get |
| 5 |
>>> installed first, as users will probably learn about p.masking it only |
| 6 |
>>> *after* they install it. |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> I don't have strong feelings on whether having v3 installed by default |
| 9 |
>> is a big problem, but the last bit here probably should be addressed. |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
>> The current news item only shows up for people with python 3.1 already |
| 12 |
>> installed. Would it make sense to have it show up for anybody with any |
| 13 |
>> version of python installed? Otherwise it is news after-the-fact. |
| 14 |
>> |
| 15 |
>> Rich |
| 16 |
>> |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Hello |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> Maybe I have misunderstood anything (since I don't know much about |
| 21 |
> python stuff) but, what would occur if I forget to mask python-3 and |
| 22 |
> don't run python-updater. My plans would be to try to delay |
| 23 |
> python-updater running until I switch to use python3, because some |
| 24 |
> machines I maintain are quite old and takes some time to re-emerge all |
| 25 |
> python apps :-/ |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> Thanks for the info |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
If you don't want to run python-updater, then you'd better mask |
| 30 |
python3 and uninstall it. Otherwise, you'll encounter build failures |
| 31 |
due to new packages trying to build for python3 when their |
| 32 |
dependencies haven't been rebuilt with python3 support. There's no |
| 33 |
harm done since it's easy to mask and uninstall python3 at this |
| 34 |
point, thereby avoiding the need to run python-updater. |
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
Thanks, |
| 37 |
Zac |
Archives