From owner-freebsd-python@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Feb 2 00:06:27 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-python@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42B9A106564A for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 00:06:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from phoffman@proper.com) Received: from hoffman.proper.com (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E1B18FC12 for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 00:06:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.20.30.103] (50-0-66-4.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [50.0.66.4]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.5/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q1206Poj011642 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 1 Feb 2012 17:06:26 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from phoffman@proper.com) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1251.1) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Paul Hoffman In-Reply-To: <20120201235526.GE14235@lonesome.com> Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 16:06:25 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <03D706CD-7FE1-43EC-BC5D-A00095FF57C5@proper.com> <20120201004547.GA30118@lonesome.com> <73AC545C-1F1A-48F5-9FDD-A91107AB3003@proper.com> <20120201051808.GA11036@lonesome.com> <20120201235526.GE14235@lonesome.com> To: Mark Linimon X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1251.1) Cc: freebsd-python@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: The state of packages based on Python ports X-BeenThere: freebsd-python@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD-specific Python issues List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2012 00:06:27 -0000 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"? >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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=