| 1 |
On 07/29/2012 10:13 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote: |
| 2 |
> This past weekend, the topic of the current state of Python 3 in Gentoo |
| 3 |
> was raised once again in the #gentoo-dev IRC channel. Here's where we |
| 4 |
> currently stand: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> 1. Python 3.2 is installed by default on major arches due to its |
| 7 |
> presence in the stage3 tarball. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> 2. Python 2 is NOT installed by default as nothing in the system set |
| 10 |
> actually depends on it. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> 3. In most cases, users end up building and installing Python 2.7 as a |
| 13 |
> dependency of some other package once they have their system set up. |
| 14 |
> Users end up having two versions of Python installed. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> This third point is the cause of some annoyance for several (many?) |
| 17 |
> developers and users. In most cases, there really is no reason for a |
| 18 |
> user to have two versions of Python installed; it is simply a redundant |
| 19 |
> set of code. However, if you attempt to remove Python 3, portage will |
| 20 |
> just pull it back on the next world upgrade unless you mask it. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> I don't think this makes for a very good user experience. So, how can we |
| 23 |
> change that? |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> As I see it, we need a way to avoid portage's overly optimistic upgrade |
| 26 |
> mechanic. One way to do that is to drop the stable keywords on Python 3, |
| 27 |
> but I feel that is dishonest; Python 3 itself is perfectly stable, so we |
| 28 |
> should not force users to unmask it. |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> The other way that occurs to me (and others) is to rename |
| 31 |
> dev-lang/python-3* to dev-lang/python3, treating it as an entirely |
| 32 |
> separate package. I believe this has been proposed in the past, and I'm |
| 33 |
> honestly not sure why it never gained traction. It would take some work, |
| 34 |
> but we have already had a couple of non-python devs volunteer to help out. |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
> We can work out the technical details in follow-up discussion. |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
> Is anyone in favor or opposed to this package rename idea? Are there any |
| 39 |
> better ideas? |
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
I have already setup a github repository we could use to make the |
| 43 |
appropriate changes to the tree at our leisure: |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
https://github.com/gentoo/portage-devel |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
Then it should be possible to do this change with minimal disruption |
| 48 |
once we are happy with what we have there. |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
Also, I am willing to help. :) |
Archives