On 2011-05-11, Grant Edwards <grant.b.edwards@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2011-05-10, Mick <michaelkintzios@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Apparently so. It seems like it ought to pay attention to eselect.
>>> If I've explicitly configured my system to use 2.6 instead of 2.7,
>>> removing 2.6 doesn't seem like a good thing...
>>
>> I am not sure I understand:
>>
>> If you eselect python 2.7 and run python-updater (and revdep-rebuild
>> just in case) I would think that you *should* have a working system.
>
> I have a number of python libraries installed that don't have ebuilds.
> At one point some of them weren't compatible with 2.6.

That should have read "weren't compatible with 2.7."

--
Grant Edwards grant.b.edwards Yow! Can you MAIL a BEAN
at CAKE?
gmail.com

>>> Apparently so. *It seems like it ought to pay attention to eselect.

>>> If I've explicitly configured my system to use 2.6 instead of 2.7,

>>> removing 2.6 doesn't seem like a good thing...

Sounds to me like that should be made into a feature request. What does the list think? If there's support I will log it.

On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 4:53 PM, Adam Carter <adamcarter3@gmail.com> wrote:


>>> Apparently so. *It seems like it ought to pay attention to eselect.

>>> If I've explicitly configured my system to use 2.6 instead of 2.7,

>>> removing 2.6 doesn't seem like a good thing...

Sounds to me like that should be made into a feature request. What does the list think? If there's support I will log it.



+1* It bit me, and just seems stupid.

--
Kevin O'Gorman, PhD

Apparently, though unproven, at 04:13 on Thursday 12 May 2011, Kevin O'Gorman
did opine thusly:

> On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 4:53 PM, Adam Carter <adamcarter3@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>> Apparently so. It seems like it ought to pay attention to eselect.
> > >>>
> >> >>> If I've explicitly configured my system to use 2.6 instead of 2.7,
> >> >>> removing 2.6 doesn't seem like a good thing...
> >
> > Sounds to me like that should be made into a feature request. What does
> > the list think? If there's support I will log it.
>
> +1 It bit me, and just seems stupid.

+1

I like Neil's suggestion - eselect can put packages it knows about into a
specially-named set.


--
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

> +1 *It bit me, and just seems stupid.



+1



I like Neil's suggestion - eselect can put packages it knows about into a

specially-named set.



I've logged the bug;
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=367611

Based on the quality of Neil's posts i'm sure you're right, but i'll leave the devs to choose the solution. I've just requested the check in the bug above, not make any suggestions on how to implement it.