On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 07:35:25AM -0700, Roger Marquis wrote: > >> On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 11:18:50PM +0200, Dima Pasechnik wrote: > >>> So there is more "software bureaucracy" here than just applying one patch. > > You sure about that Dima? Whether one or several the patching doesn't > appear to be complicated or difficult to maintain. > > > On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 02:58:22PM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote: > > For those people following along in the mailing list, Dima > > sent me a private reply that took this thread off the list. > > I am done trying to help fix the python ports. > > Thanks for the good work Steve. > > Many of us are still wondering why this change was made outside of a > major OS version update. Wouldn't that have prevented the build bug > which started this thread? > > Considering the incompatibilities between python 2.X and 3.x (which > Guido has admitted was a mistake) please consider this a ports policy > request to require significant lang/* version updates be predicated on > equally significant OS version updates. >
My patches have absolutely nothing to do with making 3.6 the default python version. I have added functions to libm that are included in two ISO standards. This causes a name conflict with sinpi() in python. My patches trivially rename python's sinpi() to avoid the conflict. For some reason beyond the comprehension of mortal man, python@freebsd refuses to add the patches to the port. -- Steve _______________________________________________ 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"
