From owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Fri Jan 24 19:56:29 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 644B11FA7B0 for ; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 19:56:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from doug@safeport.com) Received: from cyrus.watson.org (cyrus.watson.org [204.107.128.30]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4848zK22Jcz4TcW for ; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 19:56:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from doug@safeport.com) Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [198.74.231.63]) by cyrus.watson.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 888C563B7B for ; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 19:56:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from fledge.watson.org (doug@localhost.watson.org [127.0.0.1]) by fledge.watson.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 00OJuSlh041514 for ; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 14:56:28 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from doug@safeport.com) Received: from localhost (doug@localhost) by fledge.watson.org (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) with ESMTP id 00OJuSR4041511 for ; Fri, 24 Jan 2020 14:56:28 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from doug@safeport.com) X-Authentication-Warning: fledge.watson.org: doug owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2020 14:56:28 -0500 (EST) From: doug@safeport.com X-X-Sender: doug@fledge.watson.org To: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Is this just the way it is?? In-Reply-To: <44h80k3ck1.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> Message-ID: References: <44h80k3ck1.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (BSF 67 2015-01-07) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4848zK22Jcz4TcW X-Spamd-Bar: ----- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; none X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-6.00 / 15.00]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-0.999,0]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; REPLY(-4.00)[] X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2020 19:56:29 -0000 On Fri, 24 Jan 2020, Lowell Gilbert wrote: > Doug Denault writes: > >> So is this just the way things are? Relative to python, I'm 99% sure >> python36-3.6.9_1 works just as well as python36-3.6.9_3 or >> python37-3.7.6. I thought (hoped??) the with recent change to >> package/ports would result them not being this tied to sub-sub version >> changes. >> >> I'm just going for a yes or no. In the past you had a python 3 and 2.7 >> if you needed it. No so now I guess?? > > You shouldn't need the python36 versions at all. If you follow > the UPDATING directions, you *should* end up without them. ah - /usr/ports/UPDATING -- thank you Don't know that I have gone past /usr/src/UPDATING, silly me :( For ports users wanting to keep version 3.6 as default, add DEFAULT_VERSIONS+= python=3.6 python3=3.6 to make.conf and (maybe) 20170602: AFFECTS: users of Qt 5 in presence of binutils : ...lib/libQt5Core.so:(.dynamic+0x27ac8): multiple definition of `__bss_start at Qt_5' ...lib/libQt5Core.so:(.dynamic+0x27ac8): first defined here ...lib/libQt5Core.so:(.dynamic+0x27ac8): multiple definition of `_edata at Qt_5' ...lib/libQt5Core.so:(.dynamic+0x27ac8): first defined here ...lib/libQt5Core.so:(.dynamic+0x2b2d0): multiple definition of `_end at Qt_5' So python for sure - thanks again. With some of the sub-sub version stuff can the port/package makers not cover this with the way the Makefile-s define requirements? Qt is a pretty basic component. It just went 4-->5 I do not remember having this issue during the "4" days. Sad to say if I knew about /usr/ports/UPDATING I forgot. Call it a senior moment. Thanks guys Doug