Yes, I agree with this PR that we should add -N to easy_install's deinstall argument.
And shall we ask for a exp-run to test it ? wen 2011/10/19 Ruslan Mahmatkhanov <cvs-...@yandex.ru>: > Good day, gentlemen. > > Please tell what do you think about message bellow and this pr: > http://bugs.freebsd.org/159962 > > Message bellow is somewhat complements this pr. Please also note that Wen > agree with this pr, but he is busy for this right now. Also note that this > pr is a stopper wrt importing of new zope and plone. > > Thanks in advance. > > -------- Исходное сообщение -------- > Тема: Re: About zope and plone > Дата: Sun, 16 Oct 2011 23:03:41 +0400 > От: Ruslan Mahmatkhanov <cvs-...@yandex.ru> > Кому: wen heping <wenhep...@gmail.com> > > wen heping wrote on 14.10.2011 13:15: > >> Today I tested devel/py-zope.minmax in Tinderbox, it has the same plist >> error. >> Now I need such a port exist in current FreeBSD portstree to be a demo >> to python@. >> >> If python@ does not disagree I would ask portmgr@ for an exprun to test >> it. >> Then I would commit it. > > Hi Wen, > > i'm finally get it. > While seeking an example for you i took some broken/outdated ports, that i > just can't left in this state :), so i apologize for delay. > > You was right, it's a kind of upstream problem, but bsd.python.mk still > contains a problem too, because this error still exists on deinstall of > such silly ports (that may potentially exist in future). > > Here is how to reproduce: > Pick any port, that > a) using setuptools for installing > b) has non-empty install_requires[] list in it's setup.py > c) does not define BUILD or RUN DEPENDS for deps, that are listed > in it's setup.py > > Ok, i wasn't able to find such port in the tree. But you can take, say, > devel/py-daemon, remove BUILD/RUN_DEPENDS in it's Makefile and try to > build it in tinderbox - it will builds and installs fine, but you'll get > extra files installed on deinstall. > > The only port, that looked promising, was devel/py-Jinja. It defines > this lines: > > PYEASYINSTALL_INSTALLARGS= -N ${PYTHON_SITELIBDIR}/${PYEASYINSTALL_EGG} > PYEASYINSTALL_UNINSTALLARGS= -q -m -N > ${PYTHON_SITELIBDIR}/${PYEASYINSTALL_EGG} > > Note adding the -N key on deinstall. But right now they are not needed, > because this port packages successfully without them (it has empty > install_requires[]). > > The problem with Products.MailHost, for example, is that if i add zope > as dependency of this port, we well have cyclic deps and broken build. > Resolving this issue with upstream will take much time (i know this > because i already have 3 patches that hanging in zope/plone bugtrackers > more than month). > > I can avoid this a different way, by defining > PYEASYINSTALL_UNINSTALLARGS, but i believe that more correct and more > easy is to define this -N in bsd.python.mk, because it's just two bytes > in one file - and this is all, problem solved. Otherwise, i will be > forced to patch many ports with this UNINSTALLARGS line, effectively > littering the tree and making it hard to maintain. We already have it in > PYEASYINSTALL_INSTALLARGS for some reason anyway, so why to not define it in > UNINSTALLARGS too for symmetry? > > I hope this arguments are sufficient to convince portmgr@ and make this > change. > > -- > Regards, > Ruslan > > Tinderboxing kills... the drives. > _______________________________________________ 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"
