| 1 |
On 8 February 2015 at 04:38, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hi, |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> Just a quick idea: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> 1. we set default PYTHON_SINGLE_TARGET to 3.* matching PYTHON_TARGETS, |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> 2. python2.7-only ebuilds get implicit 2.7 via axs' patch, |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> 3. py2.7+pypy ebuilds -- we enable 2.7 via package.use. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Goals: |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> a. have as high coverage as possible of ebuilds that can be installed |
| 16 |
> with default USE set. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> b. Make it cleaner to install py3-only ebuilds. Right now, user gets to |
| 19 |
> enable 3.* manually, and then maintain the entry whenever 3.* is |
| 20 |
> upgraded to newer version. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> c. Improve 2.7+3.* ebuilds by replacing 2.7 with the faster & better |
| 23 |
> 3.* :). |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> d. Make it easier to switch 3.* version. When user wants to change it |
| 26 |
> from 3.3 to 3.4 or the other way around, he just needs to adjust PST |
| 27 |
> and 2.7+pypy ebuilds still work fine. |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> Your thoughts? |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
I recently switched one of my installs from python 2.7 to 3.4, because |
| 32 |
I thought it was finally time to "get with the times". But in my |
| 33 |
(admittedly limited) experience goal A would still be covered by 2.7. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
It would be good to have a more comprehensive inventory of how many |
| 36 |
(and which) packages work with 2.7, and which don't, and compare that |
| 37 |
with the numbers for 3.4. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
At the moment I would say: I wish we _could_ default to 3.4, but I |
| 40 |
think 2.7 is still the more sensible default. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
-- |
| 43 |
Cheers, |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
Ben | yngwin |
| 46 |
Gentoo developer |
Archives