2011/3/28 Li-Wen Hsu <lw...@freebsd.org>: > On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 00:52:49 +0800, wen heping wrote: >> Hi, all: >> >> After python-2.7 was set as default python version, now it is the >> time to think >> about python-3.x. >> >> Although we set "USE_PYTHON=yes' in python relate ports, but we know >> many of >> it could not build with python3, especially those install with >> easy_install since setuptools >> could not build with python3. >> >> There are two ways to resolve it: >> 1 Modify the bsd.python.mk and every python port's Makefile. >> 2 create a new bsd.python3.mk and create new port for those >> python3-enable applications. >> >> I prefer the second way which is similar to Debian, because if we >> choose the first way, >> it is a huge work of it, we have to modify bsd.python.mk and modify >> every python relate port's >> Makefile and plist, while the second way is much more simpler. >> >> I create bsd.python3.mk which is revised from bsd.python.mk and >> some new python3 ports. >> I attached them all here. >> >> Any comments ? > > I admit due to my busy day job, I currently have no time to think about > this issue very deeply, here are some thought currently on my mind: > > How about changing the package manager from setuptools/easy_install > to use distribute/pip? > > And about the ports fails with Python 3, well, firstly I think it's not > really a big issue, it only happens on the system set Python 3 as default. > One should know what will happen when setting PYTHON_VERSION in make.conf. > Keeping USE_PYTHON=yes in the Makefile is acceptable (to me) since when > using Python 3, we should already know some python modules will not work, > and it's not the default setting of ports system, besides, the biggest > thing need to think about would be "how to make this module Python 3 ready" > After achieve that, USE_PYTHON=yes is perfect. :)
I agree this way could resolve the problem, and it is what I mean as first way, but you give more detailed explaintion. But this way require huge work to re-test all the python ports and many modifications. Anyway I think freebsd python group should have to do something to make python3 modules work. We should have a decision, first way ? second way or third way ? Regards, wen > > And for knowing or getting reports about some ports are not Python ready, > I think modifying Makefile to USE_PYTHON=2.4-2.7 is OK, since it explicitly > states this port does not Python 3 compatible. Perhaps we can add a syntax > like: > > USE_PYTHON=2.x or USE_PYTHON=2 > > However, Python 2.7.x looks like the last releases of Python 2, so we > may not bothering thinking about this. > > Please note this is not conflicting with your 2nd option (entirely), I > just don't want to maintain another .mk file. Creating Python 3 ports > is fine, which gives us a pre-built binary package on ftp, that's good > and we already have some, like databases/py25-bsddb . The only thing > need to take care is setting CONFLICTS in Makefile(s) correctly. Some > py-* ports install files under bin/, not all in ${PYTHON_SITELIBDIR} > > > Best, > Li-Wen > > -- > Li-Wen Hsu <lwhsu AT FreeBSD.org> > http://lwhsu.org > _______________________________________________ freebsd-python@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-python To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-python-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"