Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 12 Dec 2017 19:17:02 +0000
From:      Ben Woods <woodsb02@gmail.com>
To:        Mathieu Arnold <mat@freebsd.org>
Cc:        ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org,  svn-ports-head@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: svn commit: r456124 - head/Mk/Uses
Message-ID:  <CAOc73CC%2B8vTnPh4A4Ea3Jdw8ut1USKk_ekkXjZXGTHKnsG7k7Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <201712121231.vBCCVBLY044497@repo.freebsd.org>
References:  <201712121231.vBCCVBLY044497@repo.freebsd.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 13 Dec 2017 at 1:31 am, Mathieu Arnold <mat@freebsd.org> wrote:

> Author: mat
> Date: Tue Dec 12 12:31:10 2017
> New Revision: 456124
> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/456124
>
> Log:
>   Add a DEV_WARNING about some hypotetical case.
>
>   Sponsored by: Absolight
>
> Modified:
>   head/Mk/Uses/python.mk
>
> Modified: head/Mk/Uses/python.mk
>
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D
> --- head/Mk/Uses/python.mk      Tue Dec 12 12:16:37 2017        (r456123)
> +++ head/Mk/Uses/python.mk      Tue Dec 12 12:31:10 2017        (r456124)
> @@ -566,6 +566,9 @@ RUN_DEPENDS+=3D       cython-${PYTHON_VER}:lang/cytho=
n@
> ${PY_FL
>  .endif
>
>  .if defined(_PYTHON_FEATURE_CONCURRENT)
> +.if !defined(_PYTHON_FEATURE_FLAVORS) && (${_PYTHON_VERSION_MINIMUM:M3*}
> || ${_PYTHON_VERSION_MAXIMUM:M2*})
> +DEV_WARNING+=3D  "USE_PYTHON=3Dconcurrent when only one of Python 2 or 3=
 is
> supported AND not using flavors does not make any sense"
> +.endif
>  _USES_POST+=3D           uniquefiles:dirs
>  .if defined(_PYTHON_FEATURE_FLAVORS) && ${FLAVOR} =3D=3D ${FLAVORS:[1]}
>  UNIQUE_DEFAULT_LINKS=3D  yes



Hi Mat,

I=E2=80=99m not sure I fully understand this warning, so perhaps it needs a=
 few
more words about =E2=80=9Cwhy=E2=80=9D?

Even with flavors, it is still likely people will want 2 flavors of a port
concurrently installed.

Does adding flavors already handle concurrent installation, making the
concurrent keyword unnecessary with flavors enabled?

Thanks in advance.

Regards,
Ben

> --

--
From: Benjamin Woods
woodsb02@gmail.com



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAOc73CC%2B8vTnPh4A4Ea3Jdw8ut1USKk_ekkXjZXGTHKnsG7k7Q>