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 <willi...@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
pgpivXFtPOgsk.pgp
Description: PGP signature
