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