Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2016 09:18:18 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: python@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 205852] Be nicer about multiple sqlalchemy ports Message-ID: <bug-205852-21822-Szi8G9uQFd@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-205852-21822@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-205852-21822@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205852 --- Comment #18 from Palle Girgensohn <girgen@FreeBSD.org> --- (In reply to Kubilay Kocak from comment #17) Of course, you're right. The API changes need attention from each and every maintainer. But 0.7 is really their oldest release still supported. For me, I need 1.0 for my port... So the preferred way would be, as already stated before: sqlalchemy07 sqlalchemy08 sqlalchemy09 sqlalchemy (1.0) right? This PR original question is about allowing a port, that is agnostic to these API changes, to use any of the above sqlalchemy ports if it is already installed (as a dependecny of a more picky port). Suggestions using globs or regex, or simply depend on a file, will all break package dependencies. I don't think that is a very good idea, but maybe I'm being overly conservative here? PR#191442 discusses actually updating sqlalchemy. Maybe that PR is more to the point from my perspective. Anyway, all I wany is a sqlalchemy-1.0 port that I can depend upon. My python knowledge is very shallow, and hence my interest here lies not with python packages as such. But I'm glad to help if we can get this sqlalchemy bit cleaned up a bit. :) Just tell me what I can do. I have a poudriere setup for example, but I guess most of you do. :-) -- 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-205852-21822-Szi8G9uQFd>