Hi together, since i am not able to get any real argument or even discussion on IRC nor on this mailing list from Arfrever (main person behind those changes), i would like to raise the following points now on this mailing list as told on IRC, so he gets the chance to answer those points and to clear the issues:
-major changes to python eclasses have been done without peer review on this mailing list. This includes pulling in python-3* versions, even when they are not required nor used on the user system Our policy is, that major changes to main eclasses should previously shown and discussed publically on this mailing list, this did not happen for the python eclass. I think, he was already told about it, but i still did not see any RFC about those eclass changes. Additionally, those changes now pull in python-3 for every user, also no package does require python-3 nor will it be used, since the main python version still has to be python-2. This results in vasted time for additional compilation (both for python-3 and every python module, which is able to work with python-3) and vasted space on the user system, since those files are not used anywhere. Additionally, every additional package raises the security risks since it raises the amount of code around, also this is nothing python specific. Since python-3 is totally optional, it should be an option to pull it in, not a forced pull, where users have to know, that is is optional and could be masked. -A news item, which is only shown, once python-3* is installed. It is only shown _after_ installation of python-3. It just suggests to not set python-3 as main python version and to run the python-updater, but it does not tell the user, that python-3 is still completly optional and not needed for him. -Arfrever also said, he would add a seperate news item, when python-3 gets stabilized. Now the stabilisation bug is open, the first arch is stabilized and i still dont see any news item, which does prepare the users in advance. Beside those points, one additional main issue is, that i and others dont seem to be able to have a discussion with Arfrever about this topics. He says, he has no time for it or says, that he already had shown arguments, but cannot show any evidence or just stops responding without any note. Even if all those changes would have good reasons for them, the way, how they are done and communicated is not very well chosen. And since i dont seem to be able to get any discussion with Arfrever about those points, i will also CC devrel. For now, to inform them and, also in the hope, that it is not needed and those issues can be resolved, in preparation for a discussion and decision on those topics, if needed later one. So for Arfrever: I also CCed you, so that i can be sure, that you get the mail. Please answer to all of my above points with arguments. Choose whatever way you prefer for that (public mail, private mail, public IRC discussion or private message via IRC). If you missed some points or others appear, i will answer and ask about those. If you do not answer at all or do not answer with arguments to my satisfaction within 14 days, i will escalate those issues to devrel. -- Thomas Sachau Gentoo Linux Developer
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
