Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2012 20:42:09 +0400 From: Ruslan Mahmatkhanov <cvs-src@yandex.ru> To: Li-Wen Hsu <lwhsu@FreeBSD.org> Cc: python <python@freebsd.org>, portmgr@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Simple change into Mk/bsd.python.mk Message-ID: <50438C61.8030001@yandex.ru> In-Reply-To: <20120902163729.GA42749@FreeBSD.cs.nctu.edu.tw> References: <50430B39.6040707@yandex.ru> <CAKBkRUyV_CBTdY4xN7K_6PH4rQN80oU9%2BpQpscbmdLz-qAW_NQ@mail.gmail.com> <50434AAF.7070005@yandex.ru> <20120902163729.GA42749@FreeBSD.cs.nctu.edu.tw>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Li-Wen Hsu wrote on 02.09.2012 20:37:
> On Sun, Sep 02, 2012 at 16:01:51 +0400, Ruslan Mahmatkhanov wrote:
>>
>> I believe that original intention was not to hardcode the zope port
>> version. Yes, there is only one zope version at the moment, but there
>> may be more in future. Just though about ports that needs different zope
>> versions. Please tell me if I understand it wrong.
>>
>
> We have the same thought. Sorry that my expression was not clear.
> My proposed patch is attached, and what I just wanted was reducing
> hardcoded dependency of ${LOCALBASE}/bin/zopectl . I am not sure which
> one is better, so please just commit one you like.
Ah, understood. I like the idea. Thank you! If there will not be strong
objections, this will be committed tomorrow.
>
> BTW, should we bother portmgr at this point? I believe they have much
> more important things need to deal with. But I am still happy to hear
> any suggestion from them if they want to step in.
>
> Regards,
> Li-Wen
To be honest, I was under impression that anything under Mk/ should be
portmgr approved, but Chris told me that this is not the case.
--
Regards,
Ruslan
Tinderboxing kills... the drives.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?50438C61.8030001>