Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 17:55:26 -0600 From: Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com> To: Paul Hoffman <phoffman@proper.com> Cc: freebsd-python@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: The state of packages based on Python ports Message-ID: <20120201235526.GE14235@lonesome.com> In-Reply-To: <A7204E68-40C0-49BA-8321-84765B09155F@proper.com> References: <03D706CD-7FE1-43EC-BC5D-A00095FF57C5@proper.com> <20120201004547.GA30118@lonesome.com> <73AC545C-1F1A-48F5-9FDD-A91107AB3003@proper.com> <20120201051808.GA11036@lonesome.com> <A7204E68-40C0-49BA-8321-84765B09155F@proper.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 07:53:41AM -0800, Paul Hoffman wrote: > HOWEVER, it doesn't answer the question of packages for 3.x. Is the > policy "there can be (mostly) only one set of packages for Python > modules, and that is for the preferred version"? It's a code limitation rather than policy. We would have to run two back-to-back bulk builds, one with the switch thrown one way, and one with it the other. The builds are scheduled off the hierarchy as built via 'make index', and thus two different INDEX files are required. It could be done but it's kind of a PITA with the way things are set up, so we had never really considered doing it. You might want to look at the just-added port ports-mgmt/poudriere to see if it would help your problem locally. mcl
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120201235526.GE14235>