From owner-freebsd-python@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jul 3 10:49:31 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: python@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ACC9453B; Thu, 3 Jul 2014 10:49:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mailrelay004.isp.belgacom.be (mailrelay004.isp.belgacom.be [195.238.6.170]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2555727FB; Thu, 3 Jul 2014 10:49:30 +0000 (UTC) X-Belgacom-Dynamic: yes X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AowGAKw0tVNbsUTR/2dsb2JhbABagw2BH8MUgxYBgQgXdYQDAQEEAScTHCMFCwsOCgklDyoeBohNDAHINRePIgeEQwEEmmyUC4NFOw Received: from 209.68-177-91.adsl-dyn.isp.belgacom.be (HELO kalimero.tijl.coosemans.org) ([91.177.68.209]) by relay.skynet.be with ESMTP; 03 Jul 2014 12:47:58 +0200 Received: from kalimero.tijl.coosemans.org (kalimero.tijl.coosemans.org [127.0.0.1]) by kalimero.tijl.coosemans.org (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id s63AluWO004738; Thu, 3 Jul 2014 12:47:56 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from tijl@FreeBSD.org) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2014 12:47:56 +0200 From: Tijl Coosemans To: Kubilay Kocak Subject: Re: ports/169276 Message-ID: <20140703124756.5177f63b@kalimero.tijl.coosemans.org> In-Reply-To: <53B52633.9000000@FreeBSD.org> References: <53B4FC59.9000706@FreeBSD.org> <20140703112112.120f0db3@kalimero.tijl.coosemans.org> <53B52633.9000000@FreeBSD.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Randy Bush , python@FreeBSD.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-python@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD-specific Python issues List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2014 10:49:31 -0000 On Thu, 03 Jul 2014 19:45:23 +1000 Kubilay Kocak wrote: > The cause of the module failures was due to a > CFLAGS="-I/usr/local/include" in /etc/make.conf so that parts all > sorted. This is why we kept the comment in there about using CPPFLAGS vs > CFLAGS (removed in your change) I see, that will probably cause subtle problems in other ports as well. The reason I removed the comment about CPPFLAGS is because it seemed redundant to me. Flags like -I and -D should always go into CPPFLAGS. Adding them to CFLAGS is the special case. > I understand the rationale for the move from LDFLAGS -> LIBS, but I am > still concerned due to the plethora of flags based issues we've had with > Python in the past > > This is especially with regards to the right flags turning up in the > right places for shared extensions (such as within python-config output) > and doubly-so for the substantial number of workarounds that we've had > to retain and maintain locally in the port (see the post-configure and > pre-patch targets for lang/python27 for example) Ok, I think everything is ok at the moment, but feel free to contact me if some issue comes up.