| 1 |
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 2:42 AM, Alistair Bush <ali_bush@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> > |
| 4 |
> > Someone here want people install paludis? because when I've switched to |
| 5 |
> > python 3.0 just out of curiosity, it broke totally that python written |
| 6 |
> > package manager who is portage. |
| 7 |
> > So another package manager was needed to re-install a sane portage. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> No it wasn't. [1] You just didn't know that ( which is completely |
| 10 |
> understandable ). Just as you must not have understood the implications of |
| 11 |
> emerge -C python:2.6. I don't want to be mean but would you like to |
| 12 |
> enlighten |
| 13 |
> us as to how you managed to unemerge python:2.6 while using python3 when |
| 14 |
> portage didn't work with python3. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> [1] |
| 17 |
> http://tinderbox.dev.gentoo.org/default-linux/amd64/dev-lang/python-2.6.2- |
| 18 |
> r1.tbz2 |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> I did not unmerge <python-3, I was in hard multitasking mode so I could not |
| 21 |
reconstruct how it broken so badly, also tinderbox packages work better if |
| 22 |
the CFLAGS used are the same, which is not always true. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> > |
| 26 |
> > Still, do you really want to have it in tree as stable? Really? |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> Yes really. |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> what said in the previous message which you snipped, eselect python should |
| 31 |
forget about >=python-3 is still valid IMHO |
Archives