Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2020 13:15:55 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 251019] [NEW PORT] lang/tauthon: Backwards-compatible fork of Python 2.7 interpreter with Python 3.x features Message-ID: <bug-251019-7788-ePrA5mqyMa@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-251019-7788@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-251019-7788@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D251019 --- Comment #8 from Olivier Certner <olivier.freebsd@free.fr> --- The port alone is useful, so thanks for importing it. As for your questions: - For the package prefix, I don't have strong opinions. "ta28-" seems a pri= ori appealing because: 1. It makes it clearer from the package name that the package does not run = on standard Python. 2. This would be closer to what Pip should do, if it supports Tauthon specifically at some point. For now, the Pip tag on Tauthon is "tauthon28". Of course that would mean that there's no more a clear connection to Python (the language) in the package name. So it depends on what we find mostly relevant. - I did not start trying to adapt Uses/python.mk at first, because I didn't need it. I've glanced several times at it and it seems that a lot of the tr= icks in there are equally applicable to Tauthon. But indeed, it may be better to just duplicate it to Uses/tauthon.mk and adapt the copy. If we do not copy, then Uses/python.mk will either need to accept 28 or be adapted to support custom revisions (such as ta28). Plus, as time goes by, changes may become increasingly Python 3 specific, forcing to test if the version is not 28 (or ta28). What do you think? --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-251019-7788-ePrA5mqyMa>