Gentoo Archives: gentoo-python

From: Nikolaj Sjujskij <sterkrig@×××××××.com>
To: "Johan Bergström" <bugs@××××××××××.nu>
Cc: gentoo-python@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-python] On Python 2.5
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2012 16:14:15
Message-Id: op.wanl1lvnh7emz2@gentoobook.trollsnaetverk
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-python] On Python 2.5 by "Johan Bergström"
1 Den 2012-02-20 11:59:30 skrev Johan Bergström <bugs@××××××××××.nu>:
2
3 > On Monday, 20 February 2012 at 6:44 PM, Sjujskij Nikolaj wrote:
4 >> Den 2012-02-20 09:04:45 skrev Johan Bergström <bugs@××××××××××.nu
5 >> (mailto:bugs@××××××××××.nu)>:
6 >>
7 >> > Good day all,
8 >> > with Python 2.4 being removed and all (anyone seen complaints about
9 >> > this, btw?),
10 >> > I'd like to discuss the removal of Python 2.5.
11 >> >
12 >> > Although 2.5 was one of those versions that started to be useful, I
13 >> > really see no
14 >> > reason to just keep it around "just because".
15 >> >
16 >> > Did a quick glance in the tree and couldn't find a package that only
17 >> > depended
18 >> > on python:2.5 specifically. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
19 >> >
20 >> > The question is therefore: why keep python 2.5 in tree?
21 >>
22 >> There're quite a few people developing for Python 2.5 (for other target
23 >> platforms) using Gentoo. Just as I know one guy who programs for RedHat
24 >> (with Python 2.4) using Gentoo ~amd64.
25 >> Though I'm not developer, I hold that there's no call to remove old
26 >> Python
27 >> versions from tree: declare them unsupported, or mask, but don't remove
28 >> until it's too burdensome.
29 >
30 > This is one of the arguments also used for 2.4 (as you also state), which
31 > now is gone. I would rather put similar ebuilds in a python overlay.
32 That'd be another solution, but in that case our devuser would have to
33 deal with all the other Python-related packages in python-overlay, mostly
34 of bleeding-edge persuasion, of fiddle with symlinks.
35 And Python 2.4 did not make way into python overlay anyway, and is nowhere
36 to be found nowadays (except gentoo-x86 cvs).
37
38 > The way I see it, we have these "few people developing" vs us python
39 > dev's, testing and building packages on a daily basis. 2.4 was starting
40 > to be a real burden (I've seen 30+ package silently disregard 2.4) in
41 > 2011, and we'll most likely see the same thing happen for 2.5.
42 Wouldn't solution "declare them unsupported and mask" deal with that kind
43 of thing? toolchain-herd still keeps GCC 2.95 in tree and it was
44 hard-masked even before I started using Gentoo. I seriously doubt anybody
45 really *supports* it, and compiling anything recent with 2.95 is a tough
46 job.
47
48 > It might not be time to punt it yet, but it doesn't hurt to discuss
49 > arguments until time's due.