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