https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210820
Kubilay Kocak <ko...@freebsd.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags|maintainer-feedback?(python |maintainer-feedback+,
|@FreeBSD.org) |maintainer-feedback?(portmg
| |r...@freebsd.org)
Severity|Affects Only Me |Affects Many People
CC| |pyt...@freebsd.org
Assignee|pyt...@freebsd.org |port...@freebsd.org
Keywords| |patch
Priority|--- |Normal
--- Comment #13 from Kubilay Kocak <ko...@freebsd.org> ---
(In reply to Fukang Chen from comment #10)
Escalating to portmgr@ (see below)
@portmgr please advise if/what workarounds might be available to python@ to
resolve the issue in lang/python* ports until the root cause can be fixed
permanently.
@Fukang, can you include that test matrix (pastebin) as an attachment so it
doesn't get lost (or missed) please.
Notes:
The CFLAGS modification workaround is not a root-cause fix, as it doesn't
resolve the expected/actual runtime library discrepancy (uses base, not ports).
To be clear, it appears thus far from the evidence provided, that this is the
result of a conflict caused by the interaction between framework ncurses/ssl
bits, relating to base vs ports rpath arguments, exposed by the move from
Mk/bsd.foo.mk to Uses/foo.mk. It also appears that this is not strictly, or in
principle limited to python, nor ssl and ncurses only, but has a much wider
potential for impact.
Q: What other existing base vs ports cases could highlight the same issue?
Q: Does swapping ssl/ncurses in USES not just reverse the problem in the case
of base ssl and ports ncurses? If not, why not?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
freebsd-python@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-python
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-python-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
