Gentoo Archives: gentoo-python

From: Sjujsckij Nikolaj <sterkrig@×××××××.com>
To: gentoo-python@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-python] Bug 375257: python and >=linux-3 don't play well
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 19:37:57
Message-Id: op.v16biccx5oldpl@gentoobook.trollsnaetverk
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-python] Bug 375257: python and >=linux-3 don't play well by Matthew Summers
1 Den 2011-09-16 17:51:09 skrev Matthew Summers <quantumsummers@g.o>:
2
3 > On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 4:14 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman <djc@g.o> wrote:
4 >> I think it would be good to take the upstream patch and apply it to
5 >> our packages. We might even do this for all the old versions. However,
6 >> in the simple case that would mean revbumping 6 slots and requesting
7 >> restabilization, for something excessively tiny (which doesn't cause
8 >> issues for any Python built while running a pre-3.0 kernel). Is there
9 >> a way we can slip this in without revbumping for older versions,
10 >> keeping the stable keywords? Should we consult gentoo-dev about it?
11 >>
12 >> Cheers,
13 >>
14 >> Dirkjan
15 >>
16 >>
17 >
18 > Glad this is fixed upstream and in Gentoo! As far as slipping this
19 > into older, stable packages without a revbump, I strongly urge against
20 > this course of action. Worst case and since its perceived as a pain,
21 > just don't bother with stabilizing the older versions until there is
22 > another release, if ever.
23 >
24 > If you have questions about policy, this seems to be QA related, so
25 > ask one of the team.
26
27 But when Linux 3.x goes stable, stable Python versions suddenly became
28 "broken".
29 I don't think it's reasonable to have Python 2.4-2.6 in Portage tree
30 keyworded stable (and therefore considered to be supported) and know for
31 sure that it's just a matter of time when somebody have to recompile it
32 and boom! half of Python modules stop working. I daresay these cases
33 should be handled too.

Replies