Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2017 00:29:30 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: python@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 211435] [NEW PORT] net/py-flask-xml-rpc: Adds support for creating XML-RPC APIs to Flask Message-ID: <bug-211435-21822-5hE1m7QpPn@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-211435-21822@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-211435-21822@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=211435 --- Comment #9 from John W. O'Brien <john@saltant.com> --- If we look at all */py* ports added to the tree since I first submitted this port, the overwhelming majority of them fail to meet the standard to which my submission is evidently being held. $ svn log -v -r 419262:437907 /usr/ports \ | egrep "^ A /head/[^/]+/py[^/]+/Makefile$" \ | cut -d/ -f3-5 \ | xargs egrep "USES" -hs \ | egrep -o "python[+.:0-9]*" \ | sort \ | uniq -c 221 python 4 python: 5 python:2 1 python:2.4+ 1 python:2.5+ 1 python:2.6 7 python:2.7 1 python:2.7+ 15 python:3 3 python:3.1+ 5 python:3.2+ 25 python:3.3+ 1 python:3.4+ 1 python:3.6 Furthermore, there has been no additional discussion on the mailing list, and no apparent efforts to further define nor deliver the python ports machinery capabilities required to support the "new trend" cited in comment #6. Empirically, the "trend" was actually just an interesting idea that has failed to take hold in any meaningful way. Please commit this port by this time two weeks hence (04/20) or I will consider my submission rejected. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.help
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-211435-21822-5hE1m7QpPn>