1 |
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 10:23 AM, Richard Yao <ryao@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
>> I've always thought renaming python-3 to python3 is faux-namespacing, |
3 |
>> and the thing SLOTs are supposed to help out with. Why aren't SLOTs |
4 |
>> helping us with this? |
5 |
> |
6 |
> Portage will attempt to upgrade software to a newer SLOT if it will |
7 |
> satisfy a dependency. This works when you cannot select versions via |
8 |
> eselect, but it causes problems when you can. There is no way to tell it |
9 |
> to prefer the selected version upgrades in other slots unless the |
10 |
> selected version cannot satisfy it. |
11 |
|
12 |
Your last sentence fails to parse for me, perhaps expand one of the "it"s? |
13 |
|
14 |
> I think that having to switch back would cause far less pain than the |
15 |
> current situation would, assuming that we ever do. If the python |
16 |
> developers refuse to make python 2.8, it is likely that someone else will. |
17 |
|
18 |
Please don't hope for a 2.8, it's simply not going to happen. |
19 |
|
20 |
>> I agree that installing both is probably overkill for most users. I |
21 |
>> think the solution is somewhere outside the dev-lang/python package, |
22 |
>> though, in having the system set or portage or whatever the hell it is |
23 |
>> that first pulls in python prefer python-2. |
24 |
> |
25 |
> This would require amending the package manager specification. |
26 |
|
27 |
Well, maybe we should explore that option. It would seem to solve a |
28 |
real problem that doesn't just apply to python. For example, the SLOT |
29 |
value could be prefixed with something to indicate that it should not |
30 |
be selected for upgrades automatically (i.e. other slots should be |
31 |
preferred). |
32 |
|
33 |
Cheers, |
34 |
|
35 |
Dirkjan |