Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2015 17:15:18 -0800 From: Craig Rodrigues <rodrigc@FreeBSD.org> To: "koobs@freebsd.org" <koobs@freebsd.org> Cc: ports <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>, freebsd-python@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Python and SWIG support in ports? Message-ID: <CAG=rPVcx6LM2=7=ZeLvxAxbFDdNvHEWOT1Jr-pNgAB16GZcB0w@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <56677151.9050403@FreeBSD.org> References: <CAG=rPVc6AA37NFJkP%2BGaB6Y4BQP4aBYRLGGtQ6qc3VbmC38Qsg@mail.gmail.com> <56624F9B.30508@FreeBSD.org> <CAG=rPVcQxOFxOoLyjjDs%2Bq1G%2B_ifQ05YdUQiMLG%2B8NsZ-h_xNQ@mail.gmail.com> <56677151.9050403@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 4:09 PM, Kubilay Kocak <koobs@freebsd.org> wrote: > The correct thing to do is be PEP-394'ish compatible (even though swig > itself isnt a python package). Again swig20 is a short term solution. > > I have no idea why you refered to PEP394. > The root cause is technically an inadequate 'find the binary file name' > method. > Probably, but pushing a change upstream to Python distutils just to appease FreeBSD might be hard. Unless you want to patch the distutils in all our our Python ports. > > We do want to keep/allow concurrent swig install support if they don't > already CONFLICT_INSTALL > Why? swig isn't used a lot. It is inconvenient, but not a big deal to install/uninstall different swig versions. -- Craig
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAG=rPVcx6LM2=7=ZeLvxAxbFDdNvHEWOT1Jr-pNgAB16GZcB0w>