Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 08:54:51 +0800 From: Li-Wen Hsu <lwhsu@FreeBSD.org> To: Erwin Lansing <erwin@FreeBSD.org> Cc: python@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Ports with duplicate LATEST_LINKS Message-ID: <20090714005451.GA90576@FreeBSD.cs.nctu.edu.tw> In-Reply-To: <20090713173739.GJ83265@droso.net> References: <200907091332.n69DWgXF055913@pointyhat.freebsd.org> <1e39c0a90907091948i5b11a4fdrb0d75cd08f245eac@mail.gmail.com> <20090710145547.GE86673@droso.net> <1e39c0a90907120222m4d0d7736ga6a7221e514b836b@mail.gmail.com> <20090713173739.GJ83265@droso.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 19:37:40 +0200, Erwin Lansing wrote: > On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 05:22:14PM +0800, Li-Wen Hsu wrote: > > >> > > >> I think these two are not an issue. Default Python version is switched to 2.6. > > >> > > >> But how this report generated? Switching happened before > > >> databases/py25-bsddb repocpoied. > > >> > > > The script is in Tools/scripts/check-latest-link. Could this be caused > > > by the installed python version on the system it runs on? > > > > Sounds possible, and that's what bsd.python.mk does. > > databases/py25-bsddb is a slave port of databases/py-bsddb, > > which generates python 2.5 package for some ports depend on > > specified python version. When a system with python 2.5 > > as the default setting, databases/py-bsddb and databases/py25-bsddb > > should generate same package. So now the problem is, is it OK for them > > have same LATEST_LINK? Or we can just ignore this problem, since this > > should not effect official package build, and the latest links on the ftp. > > > As you probably saw on the ports list, this also broke INDEX (not > noticed before because the INDEX script has wedged it zfs mount). It > looks like overriding LOCALBASE to /nonexistent does fix both issue as > the script will no longer see the locally installed python version. > This solves this issue. Sorry that I am a bit confusted about what you mean. Are you suggesting me to override these ports' LOCALBASE to /nonexistent ? Or this means that everything works fine now? -- Li-Wen Hsu <lwhsu AT FreeBSD.org> http://lwhsu.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090714005451.GA90576>