Date: Sat, 02 May 2026 09:22:22 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: python@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 294631] devel/py-installer: use os.path.abspath() instead of Path.resolve() Message-ID: <bug-294631-21822-qe8iaQ5HH0@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-294631-21822@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=294631 --- Comment #33 from Oliver Lehmann <oliver@FreeBSD.org> --- Having used FreeBSD since 3.3 and creating ports since 2001, I am well aware of the struggles one can encounter when porting software—especially when it isn’t meant to run on FreeBSD at all or has a completely different view of how its build infrastructure should look. Still, "giving up" and stating that several Python-related ports can no longer be built, as long as they are still installed in the base system, is something I have never seen before (with one exception: Bacula had these issues in the past, but they seem to have been worked around). This basically makes tools like portmaster useless as soon as you have several Python ports installed. You would either need to maintain "ignore lists" for portmaster or manually remove Python ports before it has any chance of succeeding. I assume portmaster is still a supported way to keep FreeBSD ports up to date. Therefore, its workflow should be factored into how the Python ecosystem behave - even if none of the Python maintainers might use portmaster themselves. To make matters worse, there isn't even an UPDATING entry. People using portmaster will gradually run into this issue and be left with a system that can no longer update its ports unless they manually "prepare" the system for portmaster to succeed. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.home | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-294631-21822-qe8iaQ5HH0>