On 10/26/2011 06:10 PM, Ken Moffat wrote: > On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 05:10:05PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote: >> You may have noticed a lot of changes to BLFS in the last couple of >> weeks. I thought I'd share some of what I did and why. >> > Thanks for all your work on this. I haven't looked at the details > in most of these changes, but I worry slightly about one of them: >> Wed Oct 26 15:34:23 CDT 2011 /usr/src/python/Python-3.2.2.tar.xz > When I was looking at upgrades, and extra packages, for my desktop > I think I saw a lot of gentoo ebuilds that needed python2. Searching > just now re possible python3 problems I can't pin my finger on > anything specific that still needs python2, so perhaps it was just a > transitional problem. > > Supposedly, fedora used to ship both python2 and python3 (I can't > easily check if they still do that, fedora gitweb is all but > impossible to access whenever I try it), and I found a claim that a > lot of the packages in arch's 'aur' (user-maintained repo) needed > python2. > Yes, libxcb and xcb-util still currently require python2. A quick run of 2to3 and a little bit of auto-tools work got them going fine under python3. Seems there might have been an issue with either RPM or Cracklib too, but most packages prior to Xorg, either just skip over the python bindings, or work as expected. I haven't been any further than Xorg yet though. > For myself, I've stuck to python2 for the moment - enough other > things were changing, and I don't like python, it's only a > dependency. Hopefully, not too much will require the old version. > > Apart from that possible issue, the changes look like a worthwhile > step forward. > > ĸen -- DJ Lucas
-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content, and is believed to be clean. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
