| 1 |
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 11:22 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman <djc@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 5:19 PM, Mike Gilbert <floppym@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> So, another possible alternative here is to scour the tree, replacing |
| 4 |
>> any dependencies on dev-lang/python with || deps. I believe |
| 5 |
>> python.eclass would also need to be updated. Does that sound like an |
| 6 |
>> acceptable solution? |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> It sounds pretty messy, but I guess it depends on how many packages |
| 9 |
> depend on bare dev-lang/python. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> I guess I still think it should be possible to give Portage a hint not |
| 12 |
> to install a new SLOT if the old SLOT is okay. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
In this case, I think we would need something more subtle than that; |
| 16 |
most users would want a hypothetical python-2.8 to be installed, and |
| 17 |
python-3 users will certainly want to be upgraded to python-3.3 when |
| 18 |
that lands. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
In other words, if we tell portage not to upgrade to a new slot |
| 21 |
automatically, that means users would have to manually install each |
| 22 |
major release of python. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
I think this would be much simpler if we only slotted python on the |
| 25 |
major version (2 or 3), but I'm sure there are many users who would |
| 26 |
object to that (myself included). |
Archives