Summary: | Some FLAVOR related changes | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Ports & Packages | Reporter: | Shane <FreeBSD> |
Component: | Ports Framework | Assignee: | freebsd-python (Nobody) <python> |
Status: | Closed Works As Intended | ||
Severity: | Affects Only Me | CC: | ports-bugs |
Priority: | --- | ||
Version: | Latest | ||
Hardware: | Any | ||
OS: | Any |
Description
Shane
2017-12-11 11:34:01 UTC
4: pkg records the package flavors as an annotation: $ pkg info py27-six [...] Annotations : flavor : py27 3: I'm working on it being "the first flavor" and not "the default version" 2: It needs to be fixed, I have not had time to work on it yet. 1: That is over to python@. I don't think concurrent should be default, it *does* break some ports. A commit references this bug: Author: mat Date: Mon Dec 11 12:41:56 UTC 2017 New revision: 456026 URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/456026 Log: Make USE_PYTHON=concurrent flavors friendly. Before, it would only create the default symlink if the Python version was the default Python version. Change that to if the Python flavor is the default flavor. PR: 224242 Sponsored by: Absolight Changes: head/Mk/Uses/python.mk (In reply to Antoine Brodin from comment #2) > I don't think concurrent should be default, it *does* break some ports. We are trying to get python ports to build and install for multiple python versions, these concurrent breaks should get resolved as part of the updates to support flavours. My experience with concurrent so far is that most ports only need concurrent added, others need some adjustment for manpages and docs. If concurrent was enabled as a part of defining FLAVOR then USE_PYTHON=noflavors should also disable concurrent for ports it does break. Using pkg install with a port origin (or a partial name match) now finds all available flavours, without concurrent this can lead to install issues that can frustrate users and lead to a bad user experience that will only contribute to complaints. I reported this as a separate issue for pkg - bug #224265 (In reply to Shane from comment #4) My experience is the opposite, some people add concurrent without verifying that it runs and that the depending ports still run correctly. The debate over whether concurrent is the default seems the only things keeping this open. I see no need to leave this lying around. |