Re: The state of packages based on Python ports
On Jan 31, 2012, at 9:18 PM, Mark Linimon wrote: > On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 05:37:54PM -0800, Paul Hoffman wrote: >> ftp.freebsd.org: /pub/FreeBSD/ports/i386/packages-8.2-release/All > > We don't update ports in the *-release directories once the release > has been cut. Thanks, that makes good sense. > Our recommendation is that you should always keep your > ports tree up-to-date, and download packages from e.g. package-8-stable/. Combined with Wen's message yesterday about the official version moving to 2.7 after 8.2 was cut, that makes sense. HOWEVER, it doesn't answer the question of packages for 3.x. Is the policy "there can be (mostly) only one set of packages for Python modules, and that is for the preferred version"? Why not also have "py30-foo" and so on? I have a specific need for a project I am working on (which uses Python 3.1), and now have to jump through major hoops of adding the whole ports tree just to get two minor Python ports; everything else is coming from packages. --Paul Hoffman___ 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"
Re: The state of packages based on Python ports
On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 07:53:41AM -0800, Paul Hoffman wrote: > HOWEVER, it doesn't answer the question of packages for 3.x. Is the > policy "there can be (mostly) only one set of packages for Python > modules, and that is for the preferred version"? It's a code limitation rather than policy. We would have to run two back-to-back bulk builds, one with the switch thrown one way, and one with it the other. The builds are scheduled off the hierarchy as built via 'make index', and thus two different INDEX files are required. It could be done but it's kind of a PITA with the way things are set up, so we had never really considered doing it. You might want to look at the just-added port ports-mgmt/poudriere to see if it would help your problem locally. mcl ___ 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"
Re: The state of packages based on Python ports
On Feb 1, 2012, at 3:55 PM, Mark Linimon wrote: > On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 07:53:41AM -0800, Paul Hoffman wrote: >> HOWEVER, it doesn't answer the question of packages for 3.x. Is the >> policy "there can be (mostly) only one set of packages for Python >> modules, and that is for the preferred version"? > > It's a code limitation rather than policy. We would have to run two > back-to-back bulk builds, one with the switch thrown one way, and one > with it the other. The builds are scheduled off the hierarchy as > built via 'make index', and thus two different INDEX files are required. > > It could be done but it's kind of a PITA with the way things are set up, > so we had never really considered doing it. Drat, but that makes sense. It would be a PITA, now that I think about how it would need to happen. > You might want to look at the just-added port ports-mgmt/poudriere to > see if it would help your problem locally. Or even globally; this could work. I'll think more about it. --Paul Hoffman___ 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"
