From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 32128158046 for ; Sat, 12 Oct 2024 10:14:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9971DE2A0E; Sat, 12 Oct 2024 10:14:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (woodpecker.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 571BCE2A06 for ; Sat, 12 Oct 2024 10:14:03 +0000 (UTC) From: Ulrich Mueller To: =?utf-8?B?TWljaGHFgiBHw7Nybnk=?= Cc: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org, python@gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Splitting dev-lang/python into per-slot packages, starting with 3.14 In-Reply-To: (=?utf-8?Q?=22Micha=C5=82_G=C3=B3rny=22's?= message of "Sat, 12 Oct 2024 12:05:24 +0200") References: Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2024 12:13:50 +0200 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: 90a3bb56-3cf2-4386-be1c-2060a88db0f0 X-Archives-Hash: bfeeac30da86e2b7035d104427331aa3 --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >>>>> On Sat, 12 Oct 2024, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny wrote: >> IMHO this would abuse the package name for information that absolutely >> doesn't belong there. It belongs in PV or SLOT. >>=20 >> To me it seems that you try to work around a problem (greedy upgrade >> behaviour) that should really be solved in the package manager. > In my opinion, it's the other way around. We have slots, that are a fit > solution for packages that are roughly compatible between every major > release, and we keep abusing them for every single thing we can bend > enough to make it fit. So are you saying that Python versions aren't "roughly compatible" between releases? Like, they're a completely different language? Also, we're not talking about major releases here (that would have been Python 2 vs 3). --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQFDBAEBCAAtFiEEtDnZ1O9xIP68rzDbUYgzUIhBXi4FAmcKS94PHHVsbUBnZW50 b28ub3JnAAoJEFGIM1CIQV4uQBEIALzoBhDUx4vvknQWKCp9Hg85RG4SUoXICHw1 b3aFQPCstd5wmRzkrpnaKUCNBxqgjKwhUzoinxtqSM9jTl2HwhMgZ8M+xcV97beD 2WnUaKVqsV8mrhoe36F6JEmnZSsga3d0opXZKeEdwIjMJHeqIZuycT1WuOSitgcn yXRemRpOif04nyuc0JdeL/ZCClBoVlMuIYxk1Y09YE1n04TEshmCKKKQCkGPwBbR rACgdbN1ID23XmkGO/rsTyA+9oBPC/XB84P0ulTlQoO6MQSzyPKX+GICZmvEJDp6 sPY1JWMEVt2M5FBXXc/7zJVN944oDeibM6Rsduyd58VtHo4hXuk= =sLwx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--