Re: git: 988da7290c99 - main - ./UPDATING: mention the python default version change

On Mon 03 Jun 11:25, Charlie Li wrote:
> Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> > On Mon 03 Jun 10:07, Joseph Mingrone wrote:
> > > We gave similar advice when the emacs ports had version information in
> > > the package name (other than PKGVERSION at the end).
> > 
> > And I find the advice on emacs problematic as well and make things complicated
> > for users.
> > 
> > In the case of python, final packages should not wear a pyXXX prefix, so during
> > upgrades for users pkg upgrade will just propose to install the new set of
> > dependencies which will conflicts with the old one and as such propose to remove
> > them. (this is not done in the python world, at least not always and causes tons
> > of problems).
> > 
> The way we do Python packaging is partially emblematic of how not every
> (current supported upstream) Python package in the wild is compatible with
> every supported Python interpreter/distribution. But there are valid use
> cases for having multiple Python distributions in the same environment, with
> their own package sets (so long as said packages are USE_PYTHON=concurrent
> safe).
> 
> lwhsu@, jrm@ and myself briefly discussed at BSDCan having something like
> the lang/python3 and lang/python meta-ports for individual Python packages,
> but implementing it in a way that doesn't make maintainers' lives hell
> especially without subpackages is a problem.

I am not saying that allowing concurrent version is a bad idea, but in that area
php packaging does a better job, I have no idea what is supposed to make sense
in the end, but the current situation is clearly unfriendly to any package
manager.

There is a reason why on most linux distros they do support only one major
version of python for packaging and encourage users to use virtual env or alike
for other versions, I am not saying we should do that, but we need to find
something that is upgrade friendly and do not rely on hacks like pkg set.

Best regards,
Bapt