From owner-freebsd-python@freebsd.org Fri Feb 7 11:44:26 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-python@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F3F524A1C8 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2020 11:44:26 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (mailman.nyi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::50:13]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48DYP61Q2Nz4SD4 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2020 11:44:26 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) id 3042A24A1C7; Fri, 7 Feb 2020 11:44:26 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: python@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3006324A1C6 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2020 11:44:26 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 48DYP60Xbkz4SD3 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2020 11:44:26 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::50:1d]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 099F44237 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2020 11:44:26 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.5]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 017BiPD1048668 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2020 11:44:25 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: (from www@localhost) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id 017BiPvI048667 for python@FreeBSD.org; Fri, 7 Feb 2020 11:44:25 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) X-Authentication-Warning: kenobi.freebsd.org: www set sender to bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org using -f From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: python@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 243937] lang/python38: Fails to package in certain conditions due to DISABLED_EXTENSIONS not working Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2020 11:44:26 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Ports & Packages X-Bugzilla-Component: Individual Port(s) X-Bugzilla-Version: Latest X-Bugzilla-Keywords: needs-qa X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Some People X-Bugzilla-Who: jcfyecrayz@liamekaens.com X-Bugzilla-Status: Open X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: --- X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: koobs@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Flags: maintainer-feedback? X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-python@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD-specific Python issues List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2020 11:44:26 -0000 https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D243937 --- Comment #6 from John Hein --- (In reply to Kubilay Kocak from comment #5) python37 has patch-issue20210 to "solve" how to disable building/installing= the extensions. That got repocopied from python36 and python35/34 before that.= =20 You probably already know this. I don't know why it was not pulled into python38. Maybe the patch no longer applied? I didn't check. But from reading the upstream issue 20210, it's clear they went another way than the original patch we've been carrying alo= ng.=20 The *disabled* marker method in Modules/Setup* was committed (looks like it was committed in python37 in 2017). So I think using that going forward is= the right way to go (instead of trying to resurrect the old patch which upstream decided not to use). I just read bug 241416. The extensions problem was known and deferred (unt= il someone could develop the fix). So I guess it just hadn't gotten addressed yet. I think (but have not tried) that this patch would work for our latest python37. We could choose to apply it there as well or just live with the = old patch as long as it still works. pro for the new patch in python37: future python37 updates might break the old patch. con argument: unnecessary work/thrash (wait until current flavor stops working for py37, if ever). In any case, that decision can be separated from this fix for py38. Re: your second question re: third party headers. I don't know if having g= dbm, et. al., ports installed before building py38 affects whether those extensi= ons are built or not. I suspect it does, but I have not done that test to conf= irm. In my environment, they were installed. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.=