Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2011 00:48:08 +0000 From: Martin Wilke <miwi@FreeBSD.org> To: Ruslan Mahmatkhanov <cvs-src@yandex.ru> Cc: wen heping <wenheping@gmail.com>, python@freebsd.org, Li-Wen Hsu <lwhsu@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: About zope and plone Message-ID: <4EAB4D48.2090305@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <4EAADCAD.3000403@yandex.ru> References: <4E9B2A8D.5000108@yandex.ru> <4E9EA6B9.7010203@yandex.ru> <CACi7718QvjA3F_ahtf-bRO3ybFBHbHOj28QKQdNoT=CR0CJEDA@mail.gmail.com> <4EAB4AB7.1080709@FreeBSD.org> <4EAADCAD.3000403@yandex.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri Oct 28 16:47:41 2011, Ruslan Mahmatkhanov wrote: > Martin Wilke wrote on 29.10.2011 04:37: >> On Wed Oct 19 10:57:41 2011, wen heping wrote: >>> Yes, I agree with this PR that we should add -N to easy_install's >>> deinstall argument. >>> >>> And shall we ask for a exp-run to test it ? >>> >>> wen >>> >>> 2011/10/19 Ruslan Mahmatkhanov<cvs-src@yandex.ru>: >>>> Good day, gentlemen. >>>> >>>> Please tell what do you think about message bellow and this pr: >>>> http://bugs.freebsd.org/159962 >>>> >>>> Message bellow is somewhat complements this pr. Please also note that >>>> Wen >>>> agree with this pr, but he is busy for this right now. Also note that >>>> this >>>> pr is a stopper wrt importing of new zope and plone. >>>> >>>> Thanks in advance. >>>> >>>> -------- Исходное сообщение -------- >>>> Тема: Re: About zope and plone >>>> Дата: Sun, 16 Oct 2011 23:03:41 +0400 >>>> От: Ruslan Mahmatkhanov<cvs-src@yandex.ru> >>>> Кому: wen heping<wenheping@gmail.com> >>>> >>>> wen heping wrote on 14.10.2011 13:15: >>>> >>>>> Today I tested devel/py-zope.minmax in Tinderbox, it has the same >>>>> plist >>>>> error. >>>>> Now I need such a port exist in current FreeBSD portstree to be a >>>>> demo >>>>> to python@. >>>>> >>>>> If python@ does not disagree I would ask portmgr@ for an exprun to >>>>> test >>>>> it. >>>>> Then I would commit it. >>>> >>>> Hi Wen, >>>> >>>> i'm finally get it. >>>> While seeking an example for you i took some broken/outdated ports, >>>> that i >>>> just can't left in this state :), so i apologize for delay. >>>> >>>> You was right, it's a kind of upstream problem, but bsd.python.mk >>>> still >>>> contains a problem too, because this error still exists on >>>> deinstall of >>>> such silly ports (that may potentially exist in future). >>>> >>>> Here is how to reproduce: >>>> Pick any port, that >>>> a) using setuptools for installing >>>> b) has non-empty install_requires[] list in it's setup.py >>>> c) does not define BUILD or RUN DEPENDS for deps, that are listed >>>> in it's setup.py >>>> >>>> Ok, i wasn't able to find such port in the tree. But you can take, >>>> say, >>>> devel/py-daemon, remove BUILD/RUN_DEPENDS in it's Makefile and try to >>>> build it in tinderbox - it will builds and installs fine, but >>>> you'll get >>>> extra files installed on deinstall. >>>> >>>> The only port, that looked promising, was devel/py-Jinja. It defines >>>> this lines: >>>> >>>> PYEASYINSTALL_INSTALLARGS= -N >>>> ${PYTHON_SITELIBDIR}/${PYEASYINSTALL_EGG} >>>> PYEASYINSTALL_UNINSTALLARGS= -q -m -N >>>> ${PYTHON_SITELIBDIR}/${PYEASYINSTALL_EGG} >>>> >>>> Note adding the -N key on deinstall. But right now they are not >>>> needed, >>>> because this port packages successfully without them (it has empty >>>> install_requires[]). >>>> >>>> The problem with Products.MailHost, for example, is that if i add zope >>>> as dependency of this port, we well have cyclic deps and broken build. >>>> Resolving this issue with upstream will take much time (i know this >>>> because i already have 3 patches that hanging in zope/plone >>>> bugtrackers >>>> more than month). >>>> >>>> I can avoid this a different way, by defining >>>> PYEASYINSTALL_UNINSTALLARGS, but i believe that more correct and more >>>> easy is to define this -N in bsd.python.mk, because it's just two >>>> bytes >>>> in one file - and this is all, problem solved. Otherwise, i will be >>>> forced to patch many ports with this UNINSTALLARGS line, effectively >>>> littering the tree and making it hard to maintain. We already have >>>> it in >>>> PYEASYINSTALL_INSTALLARGS for some reason anyway, so why to not >>>> define it in >>>> UNINSTALLARGS too for symmetry? >>>> >>>> I hope this arguments are sufficient to convince portmgr@ and make >>>> this >>>> change. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Regards, >>>> Ruslan >>>> >>>> Tinderboxing kills... the drives. >>>> >> >> Hi, >> >> Just a question, all these is still based on python 2.4 right? Because >> of security reason we should remove python 2.4 after 9.0 release. I'm >> back to the game now and will force that removal. >> Please let me know whats about that. >> >> - Martin >> > > Hi, Martin. > > No, of course. The whole point is to import zope/plone versions that > work with 2.6/2.7, and to drop obsoleted 2.4-only versions along with > python 2.4 an 2.5. > Cool happy to hear that :-) -- +-----------------oOO--(_)--OOo-------------------------+ With best Regards, Martin Wilke (miwi_(at)_FreeBSD.org) Mess with the Best, Die like the Rest
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4EAB4D48.2090305>