From owner-freebsd-python@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Oct 28 16:48:45 2011 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 98A13106564A; Fri, 28 Oct 2011 16:48:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from miwi.freebsd@googlemail.com) Received: from mail-qy0-f182.google.com (mail-qy0-f182.google.com [209.85.216.182]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3956C8FC08; Fri, 28 Oct 2011 16:48:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: by qyg14 with SMTP id 14so5530691qyg.13 for ; Fri, 28 Oct 2011 09:48:44 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:message-id:date:from:reply-to:organization:user-agent :mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=O3Yj6Jzs5Cck3375nTg7EXvUujjw/QRaK9rE4qFI/yo=; b=MI0fa3JJ0M9SCb5kwi2tQZ8yP4I0nfDtEKHdeEupG44aYBZ0zxPG7JlaRa9XvxAuvr rO5MZRAo2fWjED5mZqzXho5+ZGRsX2osQALpriCKNZ907Qcz0WtPKRynfvHs/+Te+ok1 8LZM7CsWruqIvRl3JwSKFOScdEafXJyaBsHHI= Received: by 10.68.16.69 with SMTP id e5mr5055190pbd.67.1319820523863; Fri, 28 Oct 2011 09:48:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from yakim.homeunix.com ([175.142.211.255]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 4sm24974103pbj.18.2011.10.28.09.48.40 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 28 Oct 2011 09:48:42 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Martin Wilke Message-ID: <4EAB4D48.2090305@FreeBSD.org> Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2011 00:48:08 +0000 From: Martin Wilke Organization: FreeBSD User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20111027 Thunderbird/7.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ruslan Mahmatkhanov References: <4E9B2A8D.5000108@yandex.ru> <4E9EA6B9.7010203@yandex.ru> <4EAB4AB7.1080709@FreeBSD.org> <4EAADCAD.3000403@yandex.ru> In-Reply-To: <4EAADCAD.3000403@yandex.ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: wen heping , python@freebsd.org, Li-Wen Hsu Subject: Re: About zope and plone X-BeenThere: freebsd-python@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: miwi@FreeBSD.org List-Id: FreeBSD-specific Python issues List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 16:48:45 -0000 On Fri Oct 28 16:47:41 2011, Ruslan Mahmatkhanov wrote: > 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: >>>> 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 >>>> Кому: wen heping >>>> >>>> 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. > Cool happy to hear that :-) -- +-----------------oOO--(_)--OOo-------------------------+ With best Regards, Martin Wilke (miwi_(at)_FreeBSD.org) Mess with the Best, Die like the Rest