From owner-freebsd-python@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jul 14 08:00:18 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: python@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BFAB1065670; Tue, 14 Jul 2009 08:00:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lwhsu@FreeBSD.cs.nctu.edu.tw) Received: from FreeBSD.cs.nctu.edu.tw (FreeBSD.cs.nctu.edu.tw [140.113.17.209]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 165A88FC1E; Tue, 14 Jul 2009 08:00:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lwhsu@FreeBSD.cs.nctu.edu.tw) Received: by FreeBSD.cs.nctu.edu.tw (Postfix, from userid 1058) id AD5386210C; Tue, 14 Jul 2009 16:00:15 +0800 (CST) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 16:00:15 +0800 From: Li-Wen Hsu To: Erwin Lansing Message-ID: <20090714080015.GA60177@FreeBSD.cs.nctu.edu.tw> References: <200907091332.n69DWgXF055913@pointyhat.freebsd.org> <1e39c0a90907091948i5b11a4fdrb0d75cd08f245eac@mail.gmail.com> <20090710145547.GE86673@droso.net> <1e39c0a90907120222m4d0d7736ga6a7221e514b836b@mail.gmail.com> <20090713173739.GJ83265@droso.net> <20090714005451.GA90576@FreeBSD.cs.nctu.edu.tw> <20090714075502.GO83265@droso.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090714075502.GO83265@droso.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Cc: python@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Ports with duplicate LATEST_LINKS 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: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 08:00:19 -0000 On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 09:55:02 +0200, Erwin Lansing wrote: > On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 08:54:51AM +0800, Li-Wen Hsu wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 19:37:40 +0200, Erwin Lansing wrote: > > > On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 05:22:14PM +0800, Li-Wen Hsu wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> I think these two are not an issue. ?Default Python version is switched to 2.6. > > > > >> > > > > >> But how this report generated? ?Switching happened before > > > > >> databases/py25-bsddb repocpoied. > > > > >> > > > > > The script is in Tools/scripts/check-latest-link. ?Could this be caused > > > > > by the installed python version on the system it runs on? > > > > > > > > Sounds possible, and that's what bsd.python.mk does. > > > > databases/py25-bsddb is a slave port of databases/py-bsddb, > > > > which generates python 2.5 package for some ports depend on > > > > specified python version. When a system with python 2.5 > > > > as the default setting, databases/py-bsddb and databases/py25-bsddb > > > > should generate same package. So now the problem is, is it OK for them > > > > have same LATEST_LINK? Or we can just ignore this problem, since this > > > > should not effect official package build, and the latest links on the ftp. > > > > > > > As you probably saw on the ports list, this also broke INDEX (not > > > noticed before because the INDEX script has wedged it zfs mount). It > > > looks like overriding LOCALBASE to /nonexistent does fix both issue as > > > the script will no longer see the locally installed python version. > > > This solves this issue. > > > > Sorry that I am a bit confusted about what you mean. Are you suggesting > > me to override these ports' LOCALBASE to /nonexistent ? Or this means > > that everything works fine now? > > > The latter. I was just explaining what I changed in the script to make > it less confused. No need for you to change anything. That's great. Thanks for the explanation. -- Li-Wen Hsu http://lwhsu.org