| 1 |
> On 30 Apr 2021, at 08:23, Joonas Niilola <juippis@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> On 30.4.2021 3.50, Sam James wrote: |
| 6 |
>>> On 29 Apr 2021, at 22:01, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 7 |
>>> |
| 8 |
>>> + |
| 9 |
>>> + |
| 10 |
>>> +You can also switch to Python 3.9 earlier by setting: |
| 11 |
>>> + |
| 12 |
>>> + */* PYTHON_TARGETS: -* python3_9 |
| 13 |
>>> + */* PYTHON_SINGLE_TARGET: -* python3_9 |
| 14 |
>>> + |
| 15 |
>>> +If you choose to follow this or the previous approach, you may want to |
| 16 |
>>> +remove the package.use overrides after the switch or just leave them |
| 17 |
>>> +in place to protect your system from the next automatic upgrade |
| 18 |
>>> +of Python. |
| 19 |
>>> + |
| 20 |
>> “It is especially important you do not forget IF you choose to add this, |
| 21 |
>> because it interferes with the natural rolling-with-the-defaults." |
| 22 |
>> |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> No offense, but your suggestion isn't an improvement here :P maybe the |
| 25 |
> 2nd part (after ,) makes sense and should be added, but the first part |
| 26 |
> of that sentence is a bit hard to read. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
It’s usually easier if you offer an explicit suggestion to help understand the problem: |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
“Avoid setting these if you can because it will require mandatory intervention in future.”? |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> -- juippis |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
> |
Archives