Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2026 09:13:50 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: python@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 285957] lang/python312 as default python Message-ID: <bug-285957-21822-0GZwzoavLZ@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-285957-21822@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=285957 Alexander Leidinger <netchild@FreeBSD.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |netchild@FreeBSD.org --- Comment #94 from Alexander Leidinger <netchild@FreeBSD.org> --- I agree with Warner, and at the same time I agree with DES. As a suggestion in the middle: - we could proceed with 3.12 - add something in the UPDATING message that we work on updating to 3.13 ASAP plus mentioning the status of the security issue (to at least explain the reason for the inconvenience of potentially a lot of work on the user side) - do an exp-run with 3.13, and re-evaluate if we skip 3.12 or not depending on the fallout (maybe one more exp-run with a changed setuptool after that) Further possibilities (inconvenient/controversial, but IMO at least debatable): - delay a few days the quarterly branch - accept a bit more fallout given the situation (with an appropriate explanation in UPDATING) - switch early to 3.13, accept temporary brokenes, make it a bigger group effort this way (includes the line above) I assume the cleanup for the 3.13 exp-run is on portmgr side, but just in case: anything we can do? What are the current known blockers for 3.13? - setuptools - exp-run - ??? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.home | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-285957-21822-0GZwzoavLZ>