Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 06:44:11 +0000 From: "Marcus von Appen" <mva@FreeBSD.org> To: "John W. O'Brien" <john@saltant.com>, "Eitan Adler" <lists@eitanadler.com> Cc: "FreeBSD Python List" <freebsd-python@freebsd.org> Subject: Re[2]: Proposal: default to concurrent Message-ID: <em86ff578b-18b7-4981-a88f-59a7bab846fd@hora> In-Reply-To: <14c681de-917b-4737-13a8-dc7b9256969a@saltant.com> References: <b331f7bb-f258-e157-45bb-20cec74b54f0@saltant.com> <CAF6rxg=96giSsOS5MQBEujbFNKzCHk%2BF2sanjH7sOJ4nE_5Y=A@mail.gmail.com> <14c681de-917b-4737-13a8-dc7b9256969a@saltant.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 1/29/2017 9:40:15 PM, "John W. O'Brien" <john@saltant.com> wrote: >On 1/29/17 14:22, Eitan Adler wrote: >> On 29 January 2017 at 11:08, John W. O'Brien <john@saltant.com>=20 >>wrote: >>> Hello FreeBSD Python, >>> On the >>> other hand, there are lots of ports for which concurrent is a no-op,= =20 >>>and >>> lots more that don't support python3 at all meaning that concurrent= =20 >>>has >>> little to no chance to cause harm. >>> >>> What I propose is to enable the concurrent behavior by default and=20 >>>to >>> provide a feature to disable it when necessary. >> >> >> silly question but why is it an option in the first place? > >Not at all silly. I can only guess at the answer though. Let's consult >its implementer [0]. > >[0] https://svnweb.freebsd.org/ports?view=3Drevision&revision=3D356921 > Because at that time python ports existed, which did not build cleanly=20 with python3, but which were dependencies to many other ports. The situation may have=20 changed now. Cheers Marcus
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?em86ff578b-18b7-4981-a88f-59a7bab846fd>