Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 16 Jun 2019 11:59:19 +0000
From:      bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org
To:        python@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   [Bug 237795] devel/gobject-introspection: "needs Python 3.4 at least, but 2.7 was specified."
Message-ID:  <bug-237795-21822-EkK9CWYkqX@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-237795-21822@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
References:  <bug-237795-21822@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=3D237795

--- Comment #9 from Kubilay Kocak <koobs@FreeBSD.org> ---
(In reply to Mikhail Teterin from comment #8)

Sure, got it. Thanks for helping me get there. And the dependency is satisf=
ied
after manual installation because it's a binary/filename *_DEPENDS, not a
package type.

So for case (2) of your two types, this type, one would need to be able to,
minimally at least, based on what we know now:

a) more finely declare the dependency kind (so as not to propagate for it)
b) declare it on a per-dependency basis (have it not apply to any other thi=
ngs
where it may not apply)

Independent to the feasibility, something like that is going to require some
very clear and precise "spec'ing" out before it goes to portmgr, as I suspe=
ct
it will need to.=20

This is because I don't see this as being a bug, but rather a feature to mo=
re
finely control (perhaps more precisely: ability to constrain) python version
propagation, to take into account how a dependency is used.

It might be worth us chewing the fat on IRC (#freebsd-python) and coming up
with an unambiguous and lightweight "PEP" for it. Who knows, we may even be
able to come up with a hack^W workaround in the short term, or other
alternatives

--=20
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.=



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-237795-21822-EkK9CWYkqX>