Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2010 13:36:49 -0700 From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> To: Dominic Fandrey <kamikaze@bsdforen.de> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Using portmaster with different PYTHON_VERSION Message-ID: <4CA64661.5090806@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <4CA586D4.8090903@bsdforen.de> References: <AANLkTi=EeLhd6H5v_oJz3FWuHKrY7P=Acv0jV=doq8jd@mail.gmail.com> <4CA256B6.5090908@FreeBSD.org> <AANLkTim9ZZNLYHAfe6oEvpCUO-5Aet==psNyVOWz0Rnb@mail.gmail.com> <4CA5176B.7080706@FreeBSD.org> <4CA586D4.8090903@bsdforen.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 9/30/2010 11:59 PM, Dominic Fandrey wrote: > > I've been thinking whether I could abandon the assumption that there > is only one package per origin in pkg_upgrade. I decided against it, > because the change would be too fundamental. If the assumption was > scrapped, there would no longer be a unique identifier for packages > across versions and this would introduce guesswork into every layer > of code. FWIW, I agree with you that this is a fundamental assumption and that it cannot be challenged without great peril. :) > As far as I am concerned the correct solution would be to create > py- slave ports for every major branch, i.e. py2-* and py3-* ports. > This way you could have one python version from every major branch, > which I'd expect to suffice for most use cases. I agree with you that this is likely the best solution, and while I'm not a python person I would use this approach if a similar situation presented itself with my perl ports. hth, Doug -- ... and that's just a little bit of history repeating. -- Propellerheads Improve the effectiveness of your Internet presence with a domain name makeover! http://SupersetSolutions.com/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4CA64661.5090806>