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/>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=237795 --- 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 satisfied 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 things 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 suspect it will need to. This is because I don't see this as being a bug, but rather a feature to more 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 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.help
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-237795-21822-EkK9CWYkqX>