| 1 |
On July 29, 2020 3:28:50 AM EDT, "Michał Górny" <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
>On Wed, 2020-07-29 at 03:25 -0400, Aaron Bauman wrote: |
| 3 |
>> |
| 4 |
>> On July 29, 2020 2:49:14 AM EDT, Matt Turner <mattst88@g.o> |
| 5 |
>wrote: |
| 6 |
>> > On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 7:32 PM Aaron Bauman <bman@g.o> |
| 7 |
>wrote: |
| 8 |
>> > > On July 28, 2020 9:57:44 PM EDT, Gordon Pettey |
| 9 |
><petteyg359@×××××.com> |
| 10 |
>> > wrote: |
| 11 |
>> > > > That dependency is only if USE="-gnuefi". sys-boot/gnu-efi has |
| 12 |
>no |
| 13 |
>> > > > Python |
| 14 |
>> > > > dependency. Instead of masking/removing refind, remove the USE |
| 15 |
>flag |
| 16 |
>> > and |
| 17 |
>> > > > force the gnu-efi dependency, or reverse the condition, add |
| 18 |
>> > > > IUSE="tianocore", and mask that USE flag. |
| 19 |
>> > > > |
| 20 |
>> > > > On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 7:06 PM Aaron Bauman <bman@g.o> |
| 21 |
>> > wrote: |
| 22 |
>> > > > > On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 04:55:57PM -0700, Matt Turner wrote: |
| 23 |
>> > > > > > On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 4:17 PM Aaron Bauman |
| 24 |
><bman@g.o> |
| 25 |
>> > > > wrote: |
| 26 |
>> > > > > > > sys-boot/refind |
| 27 |
>> > > > > > |
| 28 |
>> > > > > > How did you conclude that this package depends on Python at |
| 29 |
>all? |
| 30 |
>> > > > > > |
| 31 |
>> > > > > |
| 32 |
>> > > > > Hi, Matt. It has a dependency on sys-boot/udk which was |
| 33 |
>masked due |
| 34 |
>> > to |
| 35 |
>> > > > > using py2.7 only. Hope that helps. |
| 36 |
>> > > > > |
| 37 |
>> > > > > -- |
| 38 |
>> > > > > Cheers, |
| 39 |
>> > > > > Aaron |
| 40 |
>> > > > > |
| 41 |
>> > > |
| 42 |
>> > > That is for the maintainer to decide. Hence, all the previous |
| 43 |
>> > discussions surrounding this topic. It is a massive undertaking to |
| 44 |
>> > remove py2.7 from the tree. |
| 45 |
>> > |
| 46 |
>> > You've made a very strong case for filing bugs and asking |
| 47 |
>maintainers |
| 48 |
>> > to figure out what to do before masking packages for removal. |
| 49 |
>> |
| 50 |
>> Haven't we had this discussion before? Further, hasn't the community |
| 51 |
>been made aware through multiple channels of the impending removal of |
| 52 |
>Py2? |
| 53 |
>> |
| 54 |
> |
| 55 |
>Sure, and I don't mind removing packages that clearly don't support py3 |
| 56 |
>and whose maintainers have done nothing about that. However, I do mind |
| 57 |
>removing packages that do support py3 and that ended up on the list |
| 58 |
>probably because some deep indirect dep had some kind of py2 usage |
| 59 |
>problem (that I had no reason to know about), maybe because it's any-r1 |
| 60 |
>or had optional USE=python... |
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
This is exactly how it went before. No one is saying "it's your fault". Fix whatever the issue is and remove it from the list. |
| 63 |
|
| 64 |
-- |
| 65 |
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. |
Archives