Gentoo Archives: gentoo-python

From: Nikolaj Sjujskij <sterkrig@×××××××.com>
To: "Johan Bergström" <bugs@××××××××××.nu>
Cc: gentoo-python@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-python] On Python 2.5
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2012 16:14:15
Message-Id: op.wanl1lvnh7emz2@gentoobook.trollsnaetverk
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-python] On Python 2.5 by "Johan Bergström"
Den 2012-02-20 11:59:30 skrev Johan Bergström <bugs@××××××××××.nu>:

> On Monday, 20 February 2012 at 6:44 PM, Sjujskij Nikolaj wrote: >> Den 2012-02-20 09:04:45 skrev Johan Bergström <bugs@××××××××××.nu >> (mailto:bugs@××××××××××.nu)>: >> >> > Good day all, >> > with Python 2.4 being removed and all (anyone seen complaints about >> > this, btw?), >> > I'd like to discuss the removal of Python 2.5. >> > >> > Although 2.5 was one of those versions that started to be useful, I >> > really see no >> > reason to just keep it around "just because". >> > >> > Did a quick glance in the tree and couldn't find a package that only >> > depended >> > on python:2.5 specifically. Please correct me if I'm wrong. >> > >> > The question is therefore: why keep python 2.5 in tree? >> >> There're quite a few people developing for Python 2.5 (for other target >> platforms) using Gentoo. Just as I know one guy who programs for RedHat >> (with Python 2.4) using Gentoo ~amd64. >> Though I'm not developer, I hold that there's no call to remove old >> Python >> versions from tree: declare them unsupported, or mask, but don't remove >> until it's too burdensome. > > This is one of the arguments also used for 2.4 (as you also state), which > now is gone. I would rather put similar ebuilds in a python overlay.
That'd be another solution, but in that case our devuser would have to deal with all the other Python-related packages in python-overlay, mostly of bleeding-edge persuasion, of fiddle with symlinks. And Python 2.4 did not make way into python overlay anyway, and is nowhere to be found nowadays (except gentoo-x86 cvs).
> The way I see it, we have these "few people developing" vs us python > dev's, testing and building packages on a daily basis. 2.4 was starting > to be a real burden (I've seen 30+ package silently disregard 2.4) in > 2011, and we'll most likely see the same thing happen for 2.5.
Wouldn't solution "declare them unsupported and mask" deal with that kind of thing? toolchain-herd still keeps GCC 2.95 in tree and it was hard-masked even before I started using Gentoo. I seriously doubt anybody really *supports* it, and compiling anything recent with 2.95 is a tough job.
> It might not be time to punt it yet, but it doesn't hurt to discuss > arguments until time's due.