Hi Nikolai,
On 1/29/17 23:18, Nikolai Lifanov wrote:
> I think the biggest controversy is that binary names are suffixed, which
> may not be what upstream projects like and/or document.
> It may be confusing to users as well.
>
> If we can get rid of the suffix for PYTHON_CONCURRENT_INSTALL for
>
On 1/30/17 14:43, Roland Smith wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 08:26:27PM -0500, John W. O'Brien wrote:
>> Thank you for your input.
>>
>> On 1/29/17 19:50, Roland Smith wrote:
>> [...]
>>> There also seems to be a trend of separate py3-* ports. This is sometimes a
>>> much better solution than tr
On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 08:26:27PM -0500, John W. O'Brien wrote:
> Thank you for your input.
>
> On 1/29/17 19:50, Roland Smith wrote:
> [...]
> > There also seems to be a trend of separate py3-* ports. This is sometimes a
> > much better solution than trying to make a single port support python 2
On 01/29/17 14:08, John W. O'Brien wrote:
> Hello FreeBSD Python,
>
> One of the most common problems I encounter with python3
> interoperability is when the concurrent option is needed and can be
> trivially enabled. There is a growing list of bugs where this, on a
> individual port basis, has be
Thank you for your input.
On 1/29/17 19:50, Roland Smith wrote:
[...]
> There also seems to be a trend of separate py3-* ports. This is sometimes a
> much better solution than trying to make a single port support python 2 and 3.
If I am not mistaken, the purpose of the py3-* ports is mainly to
de
On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 02:08:00PM -0500, John W. O'Brien wrote:
> Hello FreeBSD Python,
>
> One of the most common problems I encounter with python3
> interoperability is when the concurrent option is needed and can be
> trivially enabled. There is a growing list of bugs where this, on a
> indivi
On 1/29/17 14:22, Eitan Adler wrote:
> On 29 January 2017 at 11:08, John W. O'Brien wrote:
>> Hello FreeBSD Python,
>> On the
>> other hand, there are lots of ports for which concurrent is a no-op, and
>> lots more that don't support python3 at all meaning that concurrent has
>> little to no chanc
On 1/29/17 14:08, John W. O'Brien wrote:
> There is a growing list of bugs [...] in my queue and perhaps others'
> to submit ([4]).
> [...]
> [4] devel/py-boto, devel/py-tables, devel/pep8, devel/flake8
It just goes to show how much dust my queue has accumulated. devel/pep8
is done [5].
Also, dev
On 29 January 2017 at 11:08, John W. O'Brien wrote:
> Hello FreeBSD Python,
> On the
> other hand, there are lots of ports for which concurrent is a no-op, and
> lots more that don't support python3 at all meaning that concurrent has
> little to no chance to cause harm.
>
> What I propose is to en
