Li-Wen Hsu wrote on 02.09.2012 20:37:
On Sun, Sep 02, 2012 at 16:01:51 +0400, Ruslan Mahmatkhanov wrote:
I believe that original intention was not to hardcode the zope port
version. Yes, there is only one zope version at the moment, but there
may be more in future. Just though about ports that needs different zope
versions. Please tell me if I understand it wrong.
We have the same thought. Sorry that my expression was not clear.
My proposed patch is attached, and what I just wanted was reducing
hardcoded dependency of ${LOCALBASE}/bin/zopectl . I am not sure which
one is better, so please just commit one you like.
Ah, understood. I like the idea. Thank you! If there will not be strong
objections, this will be committed tomorrow.
BTW, should we bother portmgr at this point? I believe they have much
more important things need to deal with. But I am still happy to hear
any suggestion from them if they want to step in.
Regards,
Li-Wen
To be honest, I was under impression that anything under Mk/ should be
portmgr approved, but Chris told me that this is not the case.
--
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"
