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. |