| 1 |
Mike Kazantsev schrieb: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 18:03:58 +0200 |
| 3 |
> Florian Philipp <lists@f_philipp.fastmail.net> wrote: |
| 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 |
[...] |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> Installing every package for each compatible python on system if some |
| 20 |
> use-flag like "multislot" is enabled (it might also be impossible for |
| 21 |
> some pkgs, which also sit in share/bin/lib) look better and somewhat |
| 22 |
> easier - just a eselech switch flip and +x (un)installs. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> I wonder, what do you have in mind? |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
I don't know. I'm not a python dev. Therefore I might not understand |
| 28 |
every aspect of the problem. I thought about something like this: |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
eselect maintains a list of all enabled python slots and a primary one, |
| 31 |
not just the primary one like now. If nothing else is specified, every |
| 32 |
program uses this primary python version (just like now). Portage |
| 33 |
installs or symlinks all files which end up in the site-packages |
| 34 |
directory in the respective directories for every python slot enabled by |
| 35 |
eselect. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
python-updater could be augmented to do the necessary rebuilds when a |
| 38 |
new version is added or an old one removed from the list. |
Archives