On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 4:09 PM, Kubilay Kocak <ko...@freebsd.org> wrote:
> The correct thing to do is be PEP-394'ish compatible (even though swig > itself isnt a python package). Again swig20 is a short term solution. > > I have no idea why you refered to PEP394. > The root cause is technically an inadequate 'find the binary file name' > method. > Probably, but pushing a change upstream to Python distutils just to appease FreeBSD might be hard. Unless you want to patch the distutils in all our our Python ports. > > We do want to keep/allow concurrent swig install support if they don't > already CONFLICT_INSTALL > Why? swig isn't used a lot. It is inconvenient, but not a big deal to install/uninstall different swig versions. -- Craig _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
