| 1 |
On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 18:03:58 +0200 |
| 2 |
Florian Philipp <lists@f_philipp.fastmail.net> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
... |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Thanks for your answer but I have to say, this looks like a really |
| 7 |
> cumbersome workaround. Wouldn't it be better to make portage and |
| 8 |
> python-updater aware of this problem? |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> The update from python-2.4 to 2.5 was a minor one with only a few |
| 11 |
> incompatible packages. What shall happen when we stabilize 3.0? We'll |
| 12 |
> run into orders of magnitude more problems than we did till now if we |
| 13 |
> keep it as it is! |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Do you think I should open a bug for this? |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
I guess one way would be to create debian-like split between |
| 18 |
packages for one python version and another, so we'll have |
| 19 |
"pyxml-0.8.4-py2.4" and "pyxml-0.8.4-py2.5" and zope can request former |
| 20 |
as a dependency, which seem to be quite an ugly solution. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Installing every package for each compatible python on system if some |
| 23 |
use-flag like "multislot" is enabled (it might also be impossible for |
| 24 |
some pkgs, which also sit in share/bin/lib) look better and somewhat |
| 25 |
easier - just a eselech switch flip and +x (un)installs. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
I wonder, what do you have in mind? |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Mike Kazantsev // fraggod.net |
Archives