Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 20:47:41 +0400 From: Ruslan Mahmatkhanov <cvs-src@yandex.ru> To: miwi@FreeBSD.org Cc: wen heping <wenheping@gmail.com>, python@freebsd.org, Li-Wen Hsu <lwhsu@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: About zope and plone Message-ID: <4EAADCAD.3000403@yandex.ru> In-Reply-To: <4EAB4AB7.1080709@FreeBSD.org> References: <4E9B2A8D.5000108@yandex.ru> <4E9EA6B9.7010203@yandex.ru> <CACi7718QvjA3F_ahtf-bRO3ybFBHbHOj28QKQdNoT=CR0CJEDA@mail.gmail.com> <4EAB4AB7.1080709@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Martin Wilke wrote on 29.10.2011 04:37: > On Wed Oct 19 10:57:41 2011, wen heping wrote: >> Yes, I agree with this PR that we should add -N to easy_install's >> deinstall argument. >> >> And shall we ask for a exp-run to test it ? >> >> wen >> >> 2011/10/19 Ruslan Mahmatkhanov<cvs-src@yandex.ru>: >>> Good day, gentlemen. >>> >>> Please tell what do you think about message bellow and this pr: >>> http://bugs.freebsd.org/159962 >>> >>> Message bellow is somewhat complements this pr. Please also note that >>> Wen >>> agree with this pr, but he is busy for this right now. Also note that >>> this >>> pr is a stopper wrt importing of new zope and plone. >>> >>> Thanks in advance. >>> >>> -------- Исходное сообщение -------- >>> Тема: Re: About zope and plone >>> Дата: Sun, 16 Oct 2011 23:03:41 +0400 >>> От: Ruslan Mahmatkhanov<cvs-src@yandex.ru> >>> Кому: wen heping<wenheping@gmail.com> >>> >>> wen heping wrote on 14.10.2011 13:15: >>> >>>> Today I tested devel/py-zope.minmax in Tinderbox, it has the same plist >>>> error. >>>> Now I need such a port exist in current FreeBSD portstree to be a demo >>>> to python@. >>>> >>>> If python@ does not disagree I would ask portmgr@ for an exprun to test >>>> it. >>>> Then I would commit it. >>> >>> Hi Wen, >>> >>> i'm finally get it. >>> While seeking an example for you i took some broken/outdated ports, >>> that i >>> just can't left in this state :), so i apologize for delay. >>> >>> You was right, it's a kind of upstream problem, but bsd.python.mk still >>> contains a problem too, because this error still exists on deinstall of >>> such silly ports (that may potentially exist in future). >>> >>> Here is how to reproduce: >>> Pick any port, that >>> a) using setuptools for installing >>> b) has non-empty install_requires[] list in it's setup.py >>> c) does not define BUILD or RUN DEPENDS for deps, that are listed >>> in it's setup.py >>> >>> Ok, i wasn't able to find such port in the tree. But you can take, say, >>> devel/py-daemon, remove BUILD/RUN_DEPENDS in it's Makefile and try to >>> build it in tinderbox - it will builds and installs fine, but you'll get >>> extra files installed on deinstall. >>> >>> The only port, that looked promising, was devel/py-Jinja. It defines >>> this lines: >>> >>> PYEASYINSTALL_INSTALLARGS= -N ${PYTHON_SITELIBDIR}/${PYEASYINSTALL_EGG} >>> PYEASYINSTALL_UNINSTALLARGS= -q -m -N >>> ${PYTHON_SITELIBDIR}/${PYEASYINSTALL_EGG} >>> >>> Note adding the -N key on deinstall. But right now they are not needed, >>> because this port packages successfully without them (it has empty >>> install_requires[]). >>> >>> The problem with Products.MailHost, for example, is that if i add zope >>> as dependency of this port, we well have cyclic deps and broken build. >>> Resolving this issue with upstream will take much time (i know this >>> because i already have 3 patches that hanging in zope/plone bugtrackers >>> more than month). >>> >>> I can avoid this a different way, by defining >>> PYEASYINSTALL_UNINSTALLARGS, but i believe that more correct and more >>> easy is to define this -N in bsd.python.mk, because it's just two bytes >>> in one file - and this is all, problem solved. Otherwise, i will be >>> forced to patch many ports with this UNINSTALLARGS line, effectively >>> littering the tree and making it hard to maintain. We already have it in >>> PYEASYINSTALL_INSTALLARGS for some reason anyway, so why to not >>> define it in >>> UNINSTALLARGS too for symmetry? >>> >>> I hope this arguments are sufficient to convince portmgr@ and make this >>> change. >>> >>> -- >>> Regards, >>> Ruslan >>> >>> Tinderboxing kills... the drives. >>> > > Hi, > > Just a question, all these is still based on python 2.4 right? Because > of security reason we should remove python 2.4 after 9.0 release. I'm > back to the game now and will force that removal. > Please let me know whats about that. > > - Martin > Hi, Martin. No, of course. The whole point is to import zope/plone versions that work with 2.6/2.7, and to drop obsoleted 2.4-only versions along with python 2.4 an 2.5. -- Regards, Ruslan Tinderboxing kills... the drives.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4EAADCAD.3000403>