| 1 |
On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 21:27:50 +0100 |
| 2 |
Ben de Groot <yngwin@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> > Since the last option will take time in any case, I guess the first |
| 5 |
> > option is the best to achieve the desired goal: make sure Python 3 |
| 6 |
> > stays as far away as possible from any system that doesn't need it. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> And the best way to do that is to package.mask it. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Mask in the CVS tree?! Hmmm, there are tons of broken junk long dead |
| 11 |
upstream in the tree that doesn't even compile - guess what - not |
| 12 |
masked and noone's caring. Why on earth would you mask a working |
| 13 |
package with extremely active maintainer in CVS - just because you |
| 14 |
don't have a use for it? So why don't you mask it for yourself if you |
| 15 |
don't have any use for it? |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
The time spent on this ML debate would IMHO be better spent on fixing |
| 18 |
the dependencies in the tree for stuff that doesn't work w/ python-2 and |
| 19 |
yet has unversioned or >= deps in ebuilds and such. [1] |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Cheers, |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
DN. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
[1] http://tinyurl.com/yhlmcq8 |
Archives