On 04/12/2017 21:52, Dewayne Geraghty wrote: > Unfortunately it appears that we need to build multiple versions of, > say, python when you only NEED to run 2.7 refer to (1) above? It used > to be that the ports team recommended when users should update python, > php, etc and the ports suite would head in that direction. Its an > uncomfortable prospect - *maintaining* multiple versions of the same > language on a production platform... > Not everyone updates their Python environments at the same time, especially when you have scripts/programs that use libraries and functions whose names can change on a whim between 3.x releases.
Flavours ime solved more of a dependency hell situation where certain ports would strictly depend on python2.7 packages but the system/make.conf (like how mine is set up) has python3.x as default. Before flavours, those python ports would build python3.x packages instead of the python2.7 ones needed by the port that specified them. For example, I had to insert some ugly hacks into the python dependencies of net/samba4x and www/firefox, among other ports with the same problem I faced, to force those python ports to build the python2.7 package. -- Charlie Li Can't think of a witty .sigline today… (This email address is for mailing list use only; replace local-part with vishwin for off-list communication)
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
