| 1 |
Am 05.06.2010 16:43, schrieb Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis: |
| 2 |
> 2010-05-27 16:33:39 Thomas Sachau napisał(a): |
| 3 |
>> Hi together, |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
>> since i am not able to get any real argument or even discussion on IRC nor on this mailing list from |
| 6 |
>> Arfrever (main person behind those changes), i would like to raise the following points now on this |
| 7 |
>> mailing list as told on IRC, so he gets the chance to answer those points and to clear the issues: |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
>> -major changes to python eclasses have been done without peer review on this mailing list. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> There weren't any major changes in python.eclass in last months. In r1.96:r1.100 I committed a set of minor changes. |
| 12 |
> Some code was moved, which might cause false impression that there were some major changes: |
| 13 |
> - "MISCELLANEOUS FUNCTIONS" section (with 8 functions) was moved to before "FUNCTIONS FOR PACKAGES SUPPORTING |
| 14 |
> INSTALLATION FOR MULTIPLE PYTHON ABIS" section. |
| 15 |
> - python_pkg_setup() function was moved to "MISCELLANEOUS FUNCTIONS" section. |
| 16 |
> - A part of python_mod_cleanup() function was split to _python_clean_compiled_modules() function. |
| 17 |
> python_mod_cleanup() now calls _python_clean_compiled_modules(). |
| 18 |
> - 2 loops in python_mod_optimize() were divided and some code was reindented. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
You dont call the support for multiple python slots a "major change"? I did not see any RFC about |
| 21 |
your idea, concept or implementation. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Even when other people, after the implementation was done, tried to talk with you about your way and |
| 24 |
pointing out other possible ways, which would be less complex (e.g. the "ruby way" or implementation |
| 25 |
on package manager side), you did not listen or refused to accept them because some optional |
| 26 |
additional feature might not work with that way. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
>> This includes pulling in python-3* versions |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> It's untruth. python.eclass or distutils.eclass don't enforce any particular version of Python. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
If any package does inherit python or distutils eclass, then those eclasses do pull in |
| 34 |
"dev-lang/python", which is unversioned, so it will always pull in the latest version, in this case |
| 35 |
python-3*. You could change this, so it allows any major installed slot to satisfy the python |
| 36 |
dependency. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
Additionally, your implementation pulls in python-3* for packages, which support multiple versions |
| 39 |
of python, but would work fine with the already installed python-2* version. This behaviour might be |
| 40 |
fine, when one could actually use python-3* as main version, but currently you pull in an unneeded |
| 41 |
and unused python slot. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
And your current implementation requires the use of another tool, python-updater, to maintain python |
| 44 |
related ebuilds, since your current implementation does not allow the package manager to see the |
| 45 |
needed/used dependencies and to (re)compile the packages as needed. |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
> |
| 48 |
>> -A news item, which is only shown, once python-3* is installed. |
| 49 |
>> |
| 50 |
>> It is only shown _after_ installation of python-3. |
| 51 |
> |
| 52 |
> You might file an enhancement request for Portage to show news items before installation. |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
Huh? Your news item explicitly requires the installation of python-3, before it is shown. This has |
| 55 |
nothing to do with the package manager, it is, what you define in your news item. |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
> |
| 58 |
>> Beside those points, one additional main issue is, that i and others dont seem to be able to have a |
| 59 |
>> discussion with Arfrever about this topics. |
| 60 |
> |
| 61 |
> I'm answering to new (unanswered), rational arguments about these topics. |
| 62 |
> |
| 63 |
>> He says, he has no time for it or says, that he already had shown arguments, but cannot show |
| 64 |
>> any evidence or just stops responding without any note. |
| 65 |
> |
| 66 |
> There had been multiple threads about Python 3. Read e-mails written by me or Dirkjan Ochtman in the following threads: |
| 67 |
> http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_115ce6fa1a09de286bf58db12df463c6.xml |
| 68 |
> http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_814e67764c17f88bde94f22e9a392e4f.xml |
| 69 |
> http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_2591c1b9a7e7b72383d3841bc05dc417.xml |
| 70 |
|
| 71 |
I did read the threads about python-3, but i still dont see any real argument, why you want everyone |
| 72 |
to install python-3*, also it is not required, not needed and not used. Also, you have written, that |
| 73 |
the python team does not suggest to mask python-3, but did not give any reason for that. So could |
| 74 |
you do that now? |
| 75 |
|
| 76 |
|
| 77 |
-- |
| 78 |
Thomas Sachau |
| 79 |
|
| 80 |
Gentoo Linux Developer |
Archives