| 1 |
On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 10:02 PM Raphael MD <raphaxx@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> now suffering with python 3.6/3.8 dependency mess. |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
On anything but a simple system it seems very difficult to deal with |
| 7 |
the python update without overriding the python flags on at least some |
| 8 |
packages. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
I recommend maintaining these in a separate config file to make it |
| 11 |
easier to clean these changes up eventually. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Following the news item and enabling 3.6 and 3.7 in the interim is |
| 14 |
probably your best course of action to minimize the amount of |
| 15 |
micromangement. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
You shouldn't see much asking for 3.8 just yet, at least not when |
| 18 |
using stable keywords. If you're using testing keywords, well, thanks |
| 19 |
for testing, and you can see why they call it that. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
In a few weeks I think it will settle down, and it isn't quite as bad |
| 22 |
if you're updating daily/weekly since the number of changes is more |
| 23 |
moderate. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Much of the problem stems from the fact that we're trying to rapidly |
| 26 |
get up to date on python. That means that various packages are in |
| 27 |
various states of support for various versions of python. Also, |
| 28 |
default settings for building python were changed before all the |
| 29 |
packages supporting them were stabilized. I can't really speak for |
| 30 |
those doing that but I suspect it is in part to avoid having to wait |
| 31 |
for bugs for all the impacted packages to get resolved, or to obtain |
| 32 |
permission to force them to be removed. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
Rich |
Archives