Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 16:06:25 -0800 From: Paul Hoffman <phoffman@proper.com> To: Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com> Cc: freebsd-python@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: The state of packages based on Python ports Message-ID: <FC6C1ADA-994B-41F7-8A48-1F1D52B1DB92@proper.com> In-Reply-To: <20120201235526.GE14235@lonesome.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> <20120201235526.GE14235@lonesome.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Feb 1, 2012, at 3:55 PM, Mark Linimon wrote: > 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"? >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. Drat, but that makes sense. It would be a PITA, now that I think about = how it would need to happen. > You might want to look at the just-added port ports-mgmt/poudriere to > see if it would help your problem locally. Or even globally; this could work. I'll think more about it. --Paul Hoffman=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?FC6C1ADA-994B-41F7-8A48-1F1D52B1DB92>