On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 21:27:50 +0100
Ben de Groot <yngwin@g.o> wrote:

> > Since the last option will take time in any case, I guess the first
> > option is the best to achieve the desired goal: make sure Python 3
> > stays as far away as possible from any system that doesn't need it.
> 
> And the best way to do that is to package.mask it.

Mask in the CVS tree?! Hmmm, there are tons of broken junk long dead
upstream in the tree that doesn't even compile - guess what - not
masked and noone's caring. Why on earth would you mask a working
package with extremely active maintainer in CVS - just because you
don't have a use for it? So why don't you mask it for yourself if you
don't have any use for it?

The time spent on this ML debate would IMHO be better spent on fixing
the dependencies in the tree for stuff that doesn't work w/ python-2 and
yet has unversioned or >= deps in ebuilds and such. [1]

Cheers,

DN.

[1] http://tinyurl.com/yhlmcq8