| 1 |
On 03-05-2010 16:55:58 -0500, mattmatteh@×××××.com wrote: |
| 2 |
> > As you may or may not know, the Python package that the Prefix tree |
| 3 |
> > contains is far from similar to the original from the gentoo-x86 tree. |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> > Patches like those simply contradict the |
| 6 |
> > vision of Python's upstream. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> > So what should we do? One of the differences between Prefix python and |
| 9 |
> > gx86 python is the addition of the "aqua" USE-flag. We need it for some |
| 10 |
> > packages, in particular for the last remaining package in dev-python in |
| 11 |
> > the Prefix tree: wxpython. So always keeping an overlay version won't |
| 12 |
> > work in this respect. What are the alternatives? Create a |
| 13 |
> > python-prefix package, that is under maintenance of the prefix team? |
| 14 |
> > Would mean we have to fix depstrings all over the place, but as last |
| 15 |
> > resort? |
| 16 |
> > |
| 17 |
> > |
| 18 |
> > [1] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=317091 |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=317091#c4 suggest you can work |
| 21 |
> with upstream. is this possible ? the prefix team has done an amazing |
| 22 |
> job so far and i think the best solution is to try to work with upstream |
| 23 |
> so there are minimal differences between upstream and gx86 and prefix. i |
| 24 |
> dont think you want a python-prefix, seems like alot of work. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
If upstream would also want to work with us, yes. Our bugs are largely |
| 27 |
ignored or closed/wontfixed. And given the amount of bugs and patches |
| 28 |
at other distributions I feel we're absolutely not alone in that world. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Fabian Groffen |
| 33 |
Gentoo on a different level |
Archives