| 1 |
On 03/07/2010 07:11 PM, Mark Loeser wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> Absolutely not. Its actually the opposite. Until 90+% of the tree just |
| 4 |
> works with the new version of python, it should not be stabilized. The |
| 5 |
> stable tree should all Just Work together. Stabilizing python-3 at this |
| 6 |
> point would be the equivalent of me stabilizing gcc-4.5 after its been |
| 7 |
> in the tree for a few months and nothing else works with it. Sure, gcc |
| 8 |
> works just fine, but it can't compile half of the tree. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Bad analogy in my opinion. You don't really want to mix and match gcc |
| 12 |
versions while compiling packages but with python packages you can |
| 13 |
continue installing and running under 2* just fine. If a stable package |
| 14 |
uses 2* it's not a blocker for 3*. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> I hope everyone can see that this is a terrible idea and of no use to |
| 17 |
> our stable users. If a stable user really needs Python-3, they will |
| 18 |
> have the technical ability to unmask it and use it properly. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
In my opinion python-3 should go stable when there's enough ebuilds |
| 22 |
needing it as a dependency. It doesn't need to nowhere near 90% of |
| 23 |
python packages in the tree. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Regards, |
| 26 |
Petteri |
Archives