| 1 |
Dnia 2014-10-30, o godz. 16:26:51 |
| 2 |
Mike Gilbert <floppym@g.o> napisał(a): |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > Dnia 2014-10-30, o godz. 15:21:17 |
| 6 |
> > Ian Stakenvicius <axs@g.o> napisał(a): |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> >> After discussion and review by mgorny, and significantly more testing, |
| 9 |
> >> here's an updated version of the previous patch. |
| 10 |
> >> |
| 11 |
> >> To reiterate, this patch changes python-single-r1 so that if there is |
| 12 |
> >> only one supported Python implementation that can satisfy the ebuild, |
| 13 |
> >> then PYTHON_SINGLE_TARGET is ignored, and the ebuild is bound by the |
| 14 |
> >> value(s) set in PYTHON_TARGETS instead. |
| 15 |
> > |
| 16 |
> > It is not ignored but not declared, which is good. Ignoring is bad :). |
| 17 |
> > |
| 18 |
> > So I was pretty skeptic about this at first but after thinking it all |
| 19 |
> > over a few times, I think it will work just fine. While it benefits |
| 20 |
> > only the 'bad' kind of packages and adds some complexity, I believe |
| 21 |
> > this is a worthwhile change. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> I guess I'm still a little skeptical. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> What is the advantage to making such a change to python-single-r1 as |
| 26 |
> opposed to just using python-r1 with a single implementation in |
| 27 |
> PYTHON_COMPAT? |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
1. It's easier to use than python-r1, |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
2. It doesn't pretend you support multiple implementations. Someone |
| 32 |
won't get a big zonk attempting to enable python3 support one day. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
Best regards, |
| 36 |
Michał Górny |
Archives