1 |
Dnia 9 kwietnia 2017 18:15:56 CEST, "William L. Thomson Jr." <wlt-ml@××××××.com> napisał(a): |
2 |
>Not sure if this is practical, it may be less work if the use of |
3 |
>Python and Ruby versions ( maybe others ) is reversed. Rather than |
4 |
>adding all the versions that the ebuild supports. What if it only |
5 |
>included versions it did not support? |
6 |
|
7 |
It is always nice when a person who: |
8 |
|
9 |
a. did not bother to do any research on the topic (such as reading previous posts or even asking the relevant teams), |
10 |
|
11 |
b. has barely any clue (if any at all) about Python ecosystem or package maintenance in Gentoo, |
12 |
|
13 |
c. is either completely ignorant of how Python packages worked in the past (which quite proves the points made above) or presumes that they were changed for no reason by incompetent developers, |
14 |
|
15 |
decides that the workflow of Python team needs to be changed and goes to discuss it on the mailing list with other people who barely do any Python work. |
16 |
|
17 |
> |
18 |
>Rational |
19 |
>When new versions are added. Ebuilds must be updated to support the new |
20 |
>version. This can require editing a decent amount of ebuilds. Many may |
21 |
>work fine with the new version. Making this extra needless work. From a |
22 |
>user point of view, You cannot move to the newer version without |
23 |
>keeping older around till all are updated to the newer version. |
24 |
> |
25 |
>Now one could say its the same work to mark versions not supported. But |
26 |
>I think there is less of that. Also if something supports and older |
27 |
>version and not newer, it may stand out more failing. Requiring someone |
28 |
>to reduce to the older version, and maybe filing bugs to get it updated |
29 |
>to the newer version. |
30 |
> |
31 |
>Python 2.7 stuff aside. I am not sure how many Python and Ruby packages |
32 |
>break with a newer release. In pythons case I think once they support |
33 |
>Python 3.x, there is little chance if it breaking with further 3.x |
34 |
>releases. Not sure about Ruby. |
35 |
> |
36 |
>I could be very wrong and the present way of doing things being the |
37 |
>only way. However if this is feasible it may lead to less work. It |
38 |
>would allow all packages to move to a newer version. Also allowing |
39 |
>punting of older sooner. This leaves the versions solely up to the |
40 |
>eclasses. Then ebuilds simply mark the unsupported versions. Just like |
41 |
>we do now with adding versions it does support. |
42 |
> |
43 |
>Which if something was say only Python 2.7. It would have a >= to |
44 |
>excluded any newer version of Python. That said, we could do the same |
45 |
>with the current way. Saying this supports Python/Ruby >=SLOT. |
46 |
> |
47 |
>Either way I do not think the current way is the best way. You have to |
48 |
>add every version/slot to ebuilds that work fine with any version. When |
49 |
>new ones are added, the ebuild has to be touched again. When it may |
50 |
>work fine with a new version without requiring the ebuild to be |
51 |
>modified. |
52 |
> |
53 |
>This came up with some stuff requiring ruby23 as I moved to 24. Looking |
54 |
>around some stuff has Python 3.5 some 3.6, but all 3.4. So I will stick |
55 |
>to 3.4 till everything is at 3.6. Otherwise no point and still have |
56 |
>other versions. |
57 |
> |
58 |
>The approach mentioned above, if the packages do not have issue. I |
59 |
>could go ahead and switch to ruby24 and pyton 3.6 across the board. |
60 |
>Which I cannot do now till a bunch of ebulids have their targets |
61 |
>increased. |
62 |
|
63 |
|
64 |
-- |
65 |
Best regards, |
66 |
Michał Górny (by phone) |
67 |
-- |
68 |
Best regards, |
69 |
Michał Górny (by phone) |
70 |
-- |
71 |
Best regards, |
72 |
Michał Górny (by phone) |
73 |
-- |
74 |
Best regards, |
75 |
Michał Górny (by phone) |
76 |
-- |
77 |
Best regards, |
78 |
Michał Górny (by phone) |
79 |
-- |
80 |
Best regards, |
81 |
Michał Górny (by phone) |