Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 07:53:41 -0800 From: Paul Hoffman <phoffman@proper.com> To: Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com> Cc: freebsd-python@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: The state of packages based on Python ports Message-ID: <A7204E68-40C0-49BA-8321-84765B09155F@proper.com> In-Reply-To: <20120201051808.GA11036@lonesome.com> References: <03D706CD-7FE1-43EC-BC5D-A00095FF57C5@proper.com> <20120201004547.GA30118@lonesome.com> <73AC545C-1F1A-48F5-9FDD-A91107AB3003@proper.com> <20120201051808.GA11036@lonesome.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Jan 31, 2012, at 9:18 PM, Mark Linimon wrote: > On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 05:37:54PM -0800, Paul Hoffman wrote: >> ftp.freebsd.org: /pub/FreeBSD/ports/i386/packages-8.2-release/All >=20 > We don't update ports in the *-release directories once the release > has been cut. =20 Thanks, that makes good sense.=20 > Our recommendation is that you should always keep your > ports tree up-to-date, and download packages from e.g. = package-8-stable/. Combined with Wen's message yesterday about the official version moving = to 2.7 after 8.2 was cut, that makes sense. HOWEVER, it doesn't answer the question of packages for 3.x. Is the = policy "there can be (mostly) only one set of packages for Python = modules, and that is for the preferred version"? Why not also have = "py30-foo" and so on? I have a specific need for a project I am working on (which uses Python = 3.1), and now have to jump through major hoops of adding the whole ports = tree just to get two minor Python ports; everything else is coming from = packages. --Paul Hoffman=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?A7204E68-40C0-49BA-8321-84765B09155F>