Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2014 22:46:41 +0100 From: Marcus von Appen <mva@FreeBSD.org> To: Ruslan Makhmatkhanov <cvs-src@yandex.ru> Cc: freebsd-python@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Default PYTHON_PKGNAMEPREFIX and dropping PYTHON_PKGNAMESUFFIX Message-ID: <20140121214641.GB1370@medusa.sysfault.org> In-Reply-To: <52DED896.1010308@yandex.ru> References: <20140121104800.GA1370@medusa.sysfault.org> <52DED896.1010308@yandex.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--5I6of5zJg18YgZEa Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On, Tue Jan 21, 2014, Ruslan Makhmatkhanov wrote: > Marcus von Appen wrote on 21.01.2014 14:48: > > Dear all, > > > > most python ports, which install into PYTHON_SITELIBDIR or PYTHON_LIBDIR > > use an explicit PKGNAMEPREFIX assignment to mark the resulting packages as > > related to a specific python version. > > The porter's handbook also outlines that ports should stick to this practice. > > > > I would like to force the usage of PYTHON_PKGNAMEPREFIX for ports, which use > > distutils (and hence are always targeting a specific python version), by > > implicitly setting PKGNAMEPREFIX=PYTHON_PKGNAMEPREFIX in bsd.python.mk. This > > makes port Makefiles less error-prone and ensures that the ports stick to a > > common naming scheme, when it comes to packages. > > > > At the same time, I would like to deprecate and remove PYTHON_PKGNAMESUFFIX, > > since it has no practical use or relevance other than creating an inconsistent > > package naming scheme. Its original purpose (to be read in r91400) does not > > hold true in my opinion, and I am explaining the reaon(s) for that (among > > other things when it comes to naming python ports) at > > http://www.sysfault.org/posts/freebsd-python-ports-pre-suffix.html. > > > > If noone speaks up, I'll start with the necessary changes to the > > infrastructure soon. > > > > Cheers > > Marcus > > Like the suffix idea! > I just want to add, that it would be great to also automatically adjust > DOCSDIR and EXAMPLESDIR with correct prefix to make docs/examples, > installed by single port, but for different python version > simultaneously. This will help to avoid conflicts. > > Right now we have this (py-gnupg is just random python port): > # make -V DOCSDIR /usr/ports/security/py-gnupg > /usr/local/share/doc/gnupg > > So right now it ever may conflict with gnupg docs, if I understand > correctly. I think that correct dirname would be: > /usr/local/share/doc/py27-gnupg for python 2.7 > and > /usr/local/share/doc/py33-gnupg for python 3.3 This already has been done and currently waits for an exp-run. You might have missed the mails about it the other day: http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-python/2013-December/006402.html http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-python/2013-December/006404.html Patch: http://people.freebsd.org/~mva/python_unique_ports_v7.diff PR for the exp-run: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/185947 As soon as the exp-run has been done and the issues were fixed, it will be committed. Cheers Marcus --5I6of5zJg18YgZEa Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAlLe6sEACgkQi68/ErJnpkdXyQCg00bQutsX6Z/xUwyxMFM4IGIR vGcAoJzspFXjnF2umS+EIPQNK5WjCQQh =lzQU -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --5I6of5zJg18YgZEa--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20140121214641.GB1370>