On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 14:04:27 +1100, Kubilay Kocak wrote: > On 15/11/2015 7:30 AM, Li-Wen Hsu wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Just read this thread: > > https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-python/2015-November/009061.html > > > > This inspire me that we probably can create ports for those separated > > standard Python modules, for each supported Python versions in the > > tree. That is, adding databases/py3[2-5]-sqlite3, also for > > databases/py-gdbm and x11-toolkits/py-tkinter. Adding these gives us > > packages and this benefits pkg users, saving their time and space to > > build from scratch. I also suggest these ports maintained by python@. > > How do the people on this list think? These ports should be > > straightforward, just slaves port with USES=python:X.Y . If no one > > objects, I can add them. > > This might be the way to go until we have Python 3.x packages built by > default. It would be nice to be *removing* the remaining py3- ports from > the tree, not adding more, but in this case I'm not sure there's a > better short term solution to address the missing functionality out of > the box.
I have the same thought, hope at that time we will not need to maintain lots of py2- ports... However, I think that pyXY- for the standard python modules should exist along with the main port, since they complete the standard python library. > > BTW, a thing surprises me is that we don't have a pkg-message which > > hints users to install separated standard Python modules since > > python34. Does anybody knows why? I haven't touched lang/pytohn* for > > a while. I also found that python34 is directly added, not through > > `svn cp` from python33 (well, python33 itself is also not...) > > If the pkg-message is inconsistent now, I'll fix it. Note this only > solves the problem for ports users, not package users. Thanks, and it looks pkg also shows pkg-message after install: https://gist.github.com/lwhsu/237a58a65db97a71ae57 > python34 was directly added because it was built from scratch, leaving > as much if not all of the old legacy behind. > > The initial commit log has more detail: > > https://svnweb.freebsd.org/ports?view=revision&revision=350610 I see, I remember it was built from scratch, but didn't know that's the reason. Thanks again for your hard work. > > And, for the python-version-specified ports, I found now we have: > > > > devel/py-setuptools > > devel/py-setuptools27 > > devel/py-setuptools32 > > devel/py-setuptools33 > > devel/py-setuptools34 > > devel/py-setuptools35 > > > > These give us following packages: > > > > py27-setuptools-17.0 > > py27-setuptools27-17.0 > > py32-setuptools32-17.0 > > py33-setuptools33-17.0 > > py34-setuptools34-17.0 > > py35-setuptools35-17.0 > > > > I remember in the past, we add python-version-specified port using > > pyXY-foo format. For example, we have > > See original commit and the issue it resolved: > > https://svnweb.freebsd.org/ports?view=revision&revision=347268 > https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187091 > > It's not pretty, but it's (still, I believe) needed, at least for now. Yes, they are needed for every python version installed. My poit is that it might be more consistent for adding as devel/pyXY-setuptools and creating pyXY-setyptools-A.B_C.txz . I've talked with sunpoet and he agrees that it is the better name. Changing these would be a non-trivial work, I don't have a plan to do it right now. Also note that at this point devel/py-setuptools and devel/py-setuptools27 are duplicated in content, Renameing them may cause conflict... but devel/py-setuptools27 cannot be just removed, because we may need it when default Python version switch to 3. Perhaps marking IGNORE when the default Python version matches the specified version? Li-Wen -- Li-Wen Hsu <lw...@freebsd.org> http://lwhsu.org
pgp9h8KdfYMVk.pgp
Description: PGP signature
