From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Oct 1 20:36:51 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5682106566C for ; Fri, 1 Oct 2010 20:36:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mail2.fluidhosting.com (mx21.fluidhosting.com [204.14.89.4]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 638318FC15 for ; Fri, 1 Oct 2010 20:36:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 19904 invoked by uid 399); 1 Oct 2010 20:36:50 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO ?192.168.0.142?) (dougb@dougbarton.us@127.0.0.1) by localhost with ESMTPAM; 1 Oct 2010 20:36:50 -0000 X-Originating-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-Sender: dougb@dougbarton.us Message-ID: <4CA64661.5090806@FreeBSD.org> Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2010 13:36:49 -0700 From: Doug Barton Organization: http://SupersetSolutions.com/ User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.9) Gecko/20100915 Thunderbird/3.1.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dominic Fandrey References: <4CA256B6.5090908@FreeBSD.org> <4CA5176B.7080706@FreeBSD.org> <4CA586D4.8090903@bsdforen.de> In-Reply-To: <4CA586D4.8090903@bsdforen.de> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.2a1pre OpenPGP: id=1A1ABC84 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Using portmaster with different PYTHON_VERSION X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2010 20:36:51 -0000 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/