Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 6 Jan 2014 13:00:24 +0100
From:      =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ren=E9_Ladan?= <rene@freebsd.org>
To:        Ruslan Makhmatkhanov <cvs-src@yandex.ru>
Cc:        Mathieu Arnold <mat@freebsd.org>, python@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: [CFR] lang/python26 removal
Message-ID:  <CADL2u4hVqSafxYhts%2BP3jLZgyfy%2B2djeBdi53_8V4MEWHttFcw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <52CA9855.1060002@yandex.ru>
References:  <52C948C2.4080506@freebsd.org> <52CA91A3.8040309@yandex.ru> <CADL2u4ha9wWvdU76vG6CE-yA3xZ7VCC1tqi1-QtyebCSVQeBKQ@mail.gmail.com> <52CA9855.1060002@yandex.ru>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
2014/1/6 Ruslan Makhmatkhanov <cvs-src@yandex.ru>:
> Ren=E9 Ladan wrote on 06.01.2014 15:34:
>
>> 2014/1/6 Ruslan Makhmatkhanov <cvs-src@yandex.ru>:
>>>
>>> Ren=E9 Ladan wrote on 05.01.2014 15:57:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> lang/python26 expired a few days ago, so I patched Mk/bsd.pyton.mk to
>>>> exclude lang/python26 and patched the USE_PYTHON* lines of all ports
>>>> referring to Python < 2.7. You must remove lang/python26 manually to n=
ot
>>>> break INDEX.
>>>>
>>>> The patch is available at
>>>> http://people.freebsd.org/~rene/patches/python-to-27.diff
>>>> The bsd.python.mk patch itself is also here:
>>>> http://people.freebsd.org/~rene/patches/Mk__bsd.python.mk.diff
>>>>
>>>> mat@ already gave an "OK" for the USE_PYTHON* bumps.
>>>>
>>>> Does this patch and removing lang/python26 look OK to you?
>>>>
>>>> I'm not on python@ , so please CC me.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Ren=E9
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I'd say please go on with that. But there is two things there, that wou=
ld
>>> be
>>> great to be fixed before commiting:
>>> - value of 2 need to be used instead of 2.7 in USE_PYTHON in your patch
>>
>> This is because I converted -2.7 to 2.7 etc.  Are you saying that all
>> USE_PYTHON*=3D2.7 should be converted to USE_PYTHON*=3D2 and that
>> other USE_PYTHON* values are OK ?
>
>
> I just looked at it again:
>
> -2.7 and 2.7 should be converted to just `2'
> 2.x+ should be converted to just `yes' to keep it's current meaning
>
> Will this `yes'-ports actually build with 3.x - that will be checked late=
r
> for all the tree. I have plans for this.
>
I'll redo the patch with the above two conversion rules and blame any
breakage on you :-p

Regards,
Ren=E9



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CADL2u4hVqSafxYhts%2BP3jLZgyfy%2B2djeBdi53_8V4MEWHttFcw>