FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Gentoo > Gentoo Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 03-24-2010, 07:25 PM
William Hubbs
 
Default Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item

On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 08:57:20PM +0100, Thomas Sachau wrote:
> Am 24.03.2010 19:03, schrieb William Hubbs:
> > On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 05:47:18PM +0000, Jeremy Olexa wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 10:32:37 -0700, Joshua Saddler <nightmorph@gentoo.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>>>> But everyone else in Gentoo does, so . . .
> >
> > Really? I've seen a few people object, but not everyone in gentoo.
> >
> >>>>
> >>>> Some Gentoo developers/users, who aren't Python maintainers, said that
> >>>> they didn't object to have Python 3 installed.
> >>>
> >>> They're in the minority, judging by the replies in this thread.
> >>
> >> I hate to get into the mix of this, but I suggest researching on "vocal
> >> minority" and/or "silent majority" - the most vocal ones on this thread are
> >> the minority of the population. I'm not attacking anyone, mind you.
> >>
> >> I haven't expressed anything on this thread but I'm ok with marking it
> >> stable and having concerned users mask it. The stages might get kinda funky
> >> with both python-2 and 3 on them, but..if they are not BROKEN, I don't
> >> care.
> >
> > I tend to agree with this. I don't think it is right to force everyone
> > to wait until most of the tree works with python3 before it goes stable.
> > That is why python is slotted; it is possible to have both versions
> > installed at the same time. If we have packages in the tree that are
> > pulling in both versions of python but are not compatible with them,
> > their dependencies need to be fixed. If users do not want python-3 on
> > their systems, that is what /etc/portage/package.mask is for.
> >
> > If we are going to make everyone wait until python-3 works with most
> > packages in the tree, let's un-slot all versionf of python and hard mask
> > python-3.
> >
> > William
> >
>
> Who said, that we are against a stable python-3 version?
>
> The main point (as already pointed out in my previous thread about python-3) is, that it is not in
> any way required or used. But there are still wrong dependencies (where Arfrever just closes bugs as
> invalid) and packages like the mentioned "setuptools", which will always pull in python-3.

That is because setuptools works with both versions of python, and if a
user wants both versions of python on their system they will need
setuptools installed for both versions.

You say there are "wrong dependencies". How are they wrong? I mean, do
the packages with dev-lang/python in their deps not work with both
versions of python? If they don't, they need to be fixed. If they do,
they are correct.

> Why should we pull in python-3 for ever user, force the usual user to install a useless python-3 and
> additional files in python-3 path for many python packages? The minimum would be to tell them, that
> this python version is currently useless and they have the option to mask it locally. And i really
> dont think, that the default stable user knows, that python-3 is not really needed and can be
> masked, usually the pulled in dependencies are required, so he will expect the same for python-3.

If we make it clear in the news item that python-3 cannot be used as the
default python, so if users do not want it they should mask it, we have
done our job imho. In other words, this is just a matter of informing
users.

William
 
Old 03-24-2010, 07:36 PM
Ben de Groot
 
Default Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item

On 24 March 2010 21:25, William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:
> If we make it clear in the news item that python-3 cannot be used as the
> default python, so if users do not want it they should mask it, we have
> done our job imho. *In other words, this is just a matter of informing
> users.

We agree that this is the minimum that should be done. But our
Python lead stubbornly refuses to honor this reasonable request.

Not so cheerful,
--
Ben de Groot
Gentoo Linux Qt project lead developer
 
Old 03-24-2010, 08:12 PM
William Hubbs
 
Default Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item

On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 09:36:52PM +0100, Ben de Groot wrote:
> On 24 March 2010 21:25, William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > If we make it clear in the news item that python-3 cannot be used as the
> > default python, so if users do not want it they should mask it, we have
> > done our job imho. *In other words, this is just a matter of informing
> > users.
>
> We agree that this is the minimum that should be done. But our
> Python lead stubbornly refuses to honor this reasonable request.

On the other hand, I can see his point as well. The news item makes it
very clear that python-3 cannot be the default python and that python-2
needs to be installed.

It could be argued that he is just assuming that users are intelligent
enough to figure out that they need to mask python-3 if they
do not want it on their systems.

Basically this is a case of "how much hand-holding do we want to do"?

William
 
Old 03-24-2010, 08:22 PM
Zeerak Mustafa Waseem
 
Default Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item

On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 09:36:52PM +0100, Ben de Groot wrote:
> On 24 March 2010 21:25, William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > If we make it clear in the news item that python-3 cannot be used as the
> > default python, so if users do not want it they should mask it, we have
> > done our job imho. *In other words, this is just a matter of informing
> > users.
>
> We agree that this is the minimum that should be done. But our
> Python lead stubbornly refuses to honor this reasonable request.
>
> Not so cheerful,
> --
> Ben de Groot
> Gentoo Linux Qt project lead developer
>

Another user here.

Couldn't this issue with the news item be resolved by wording it differently?
The way I've understood the python maintainers is that they don't want the news item to recommend masking it. So couldn't a compromise be phrasing along the lines of "... it is safe to mask python-3* at the moment..." and perhaps also "... a news item will be released when python-3* will become necessary".
To be honest I don't think the last bit is quite as relevant if people do pay heed to the fact that python-3* can be masked without any consequence.

Can all parties agree to something of this sort?

--
Zeerak Waseem
 
Old 03-25-2010, 02:47 AM
Joshua Saddler
 
Default Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item

On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 16:12:55 -0500
William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 09:36:52PM +0100, Ben de Groot wrote:
> > We agree that this is the minimum that should be done. But our
> > Python lead stubbornly refuses to honor this reasonable request.
>
> On the other hand, I can see his point as well. The news item makes it
> very clear that python-3 cannot be the default python and that python-2
> needs to be installed.

Again, if it *cannot* be the default python, then it *should not* be installed by default, which is what will happen if it's marked stable and users aren't told to p.mask it. Even then, it'll likely get installed first, as users will probably learn about p.masking it only *after* they install it.
 
Old 03-25-2010, 02:37 PM
Richard Freeman
 
Default Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item

On 03/24/2010 11:47 PM, Joshua Saddler wrote:

Even then, it'll likely get
installed first, as users will probably learn about p.masking it only
*after* they install it.


I don't have strong feelings on whether having v3 installed by default
is a big problem, but the last bit here probably should be addressed.


The current news item only shows up for people with python 3.1 already
installed. Would it make sense to have it show up for anybody with any
version of python installed? Otherwise it is news after-the-fact.


Rich
 
Old 03-25-2010, 05:34 PM
Roy Bamford
 
Default Python 3.1: Stabilization and news item

On 2010.03.24 21:12, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 09:36:52PM +0100, Ben de Groot wrote:
> > On 24 March 2010 21:25, William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > If we make it clear in the news item that python-3 cannot be used
> as the
> > > default python, so if users do not want it they should mask it,
> we
> have
> > > done our job imho. *In other words, this is just a matter of
> informing
> > > users.
> >
> > We agree that this is the minimum that should be done. But our
> > Python lead stubbornly refuses to honor this reasonable request.
>
> On the other hand, I can see his point as well. The news item makes
> it
> very clear that python-3 cannot be the default python and that
> python-2
> needs to be installed.
>
> It could be argued that he is just assuming that users are
> intelligent
> enough to figure out that they need to mask python-3 if they
> do not want it on their systems.
>
> Basically this is a case of "how much hand-holding do we want to do"?
>
> William
>
>

The case where Python-3 cannot be used as the default Python is
transitory (it may be a long time). Should we advise users of stable to
mask it, we will get a lot of pleas for help when Python-3 is required
because many users will have forgotten all about package.mask

In my view, its better to avoid these future unmasking issues as stable
users tend to be very wary of unmasking things and let them have
Python-3 unless they are already comfortable with the contents of /etc/
portage ... in which case they are not using stable anyway.

--
Regards,

Roy Bamford
(Neddyseagoon) a member of
gentoo-ops
forum-mods
trustees
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 07:32 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org