| 1 |
On 07/30/2012 03:36 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 4:13 AM, Mike Gilbert <floppym@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Is anyone in favor or opposed to this package rename idea? Are there any |
| 4 |
>> better ideas? |
| 5 |
> I've always thought renaming python-3 to python3 is faux-namespacing, |
| 6 |
> and the thing SLOTs are supposed to help out with. Why aren't SLOTs |
| 7 |
> helping us with this? |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Portage will attempt to upgrade software to a newer SLOT if it will |
| 10 |
satisfy a dependency. This works when you cannot select versions via |
| 11 |
eselect, but it causes problems when you can. There is no way to tell it |
| 12 |
to prefer the selected version upgrades in other slots unless the |
| 13 |
selected version cannot satisfy it. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> The problem I have with it is that inevitably there's going to be a |
| 16 |
> time we don't care about python-2 anymore, and we'll be stuck with the |
| 17 |
> python3 package name (or have to go through annoying mechanics to |
| 18 |
> rename it back). |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
I think that having to switch back would cause far less pain than the |
| 21 |
current situation would, assuming that we ever do. If the python |
| 22 |
developers refuse to make python 2.8, it is likely that someone else will. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
> I agree that installing both is probably overkill for most users. I |
| 25 |
> think the solution is somewhere outside the dev-lang/python package, |
| 26 |
> though, in having the system set or portage or whatever the hell it is |
| 27 |
> that first pulls in python prefer python-2. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
This would require amending the package manager specification. |
Archives