1 |
On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 21:27:50 +0100 |
2 |
Ben de Groot <yngwin@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> > Since the last option will take time in any case, I guess the first |
5 |
> > option is the best to achieve the desired goal: make sure Python 3 |
6 |
> > stays as far away as possible from any system that doesn't need it. |
7 |
> |
8 |
> And the best way to do that is to package.mask it. |
9 |
|
10 |
Mask in the CVS tree?! Hmmm, there are tons of broken junk long dead |
11 |
upstream in the tree that doesn't even compile - guess what - not |
12 |
masked and noone's caring. Why on earth would you mask a working |
13 |
package with extremely active maintainer in CVS - just because you |
14 |
don't have a use for it? So why don't you mask it for yourself if you |
15 |
don't have any use for it? |
16 |
|
17 |
The time spent on this ML debate would IMHO be better spent on fixing |
18 |
the dependencies in the tree for stuff that doesn't work w/ python-2 and |
19 |
yet has unversioned or >= deps in ebuilds and such. [1] |
20 |
|
21 |
Cheers, |
22 |
|
23 |
DN. |
24 |
|
25 |
[1] http://tinyurl.com/yhlmcq8 |