Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2016 09:18:18 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 205852] Be nicer about multiple sqlalchemy ports Message-ID: <bug-205852-13-26Sj5pAgO9@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-205852-13@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-205852-13@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D205852 --- Comment #18 from Palle Girgensohn <girgen@FreeBSD.org> --- (In reply to Kubilay Kocak from comment #17) Of course, you're right. The API changes need attention from each and every maintainer. But 0.7 is really their oldest release still supported. For me,= I need 1.0 for my port...=20 So the preferred way would be, as already stated before:=20 sqlalchemy07 sqlalchemy08 sqlalchemy09 sqlalchemy (1.0) right? This PR original question is about allowing a port, that is agnostic to the= se API changes, to use any of the above sqlalchemy ports if it is already installed (as a dependecny of a more picky port). Suggestions using globs or regex, or simply depend on a file, will all break package dependencies. I d= on't think that is a very good idea, but maybe I'm being overly conservative her= e? PR#191442 discusses actually updating sqlalchemy. Maybe that PR is more to = the point from my perspective. Anyway, all I wany is a sqlalchemy-1.0 port that I can depend upon. My pyth= on knowledge is very shallow, and hence my interest here lies not with python packages as such. But I'm glad to help if we can get this sqlalchemy bit cleaned up a bit. :) Just tell me what I can do. I have a poudriere setup f= or example, but I guess most of you do. :-) --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-205852-13-26Sj5pAgO9>