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/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D211435 --- 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, a= nd 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 fai= led to take hold in any meaningful way. Please commit this port by this time two weeks hence (04/20) or I will cons= ider my submission rejected. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-211435-21822-5hE1m7QpPn>