Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2014 17:52:13 +1000 From: Kubilay Kocak <koobs@FreeBSD.org> To: Marcus von Appen <mva@FreeBSD.org> Cc: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r364518 - in head: accessibility/py-papi audio/py-al devel/py-astroid devel/py-dynrules devel/py-game devel/py-logilab-common devel/py-ocempgui devel/py-ply devel/py-sdl2 devel/pychecke... Message-ID: <53E8762D.4070402@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20140811065501.GC1019@medusa.sysfault.org> References: <53e7336d.2c4d.2257f090@svn.freebsd.org> <20140810095516.GA35955@FreeBSD.org> <2556564.WKGpsAPjlp@mercury.ph.man.ac.uk> <20140810155649.GA1040@medusa.sysfault.org> <A70D216E-DF96-4144-82A1-98400D1EB1A9@adamw.org> <53E801F5.1000403@FreeBSD.org> <20140811065501.GC1019@medusa.sysfault.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 11/08/2014 4:55 PM, Marcus von Appen wrote: > On, Mon Aug 11, 2014, Kubilay Kocak wrote: > >> On 11/08/2014 2:40 AM, Adam Weinberger wrote: >>> On 10 Aug, 2014, at 11:56, Marcus von Appen <mva@FreeBSD.org> wrote: >>> >>>> On, Sun Aug 10, 2014, Max Brazhnikov wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Sun, 10 Aug 2014 09:55:16 +0000 Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: >>>>>> On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 08:55:08AM +0000, Marcus von Appen wrote: >>>>>>> New Revision: 364518 >>>>>>> URL: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/364518 >>>>>>> QAT: https://qat.redports.org/buildarchive/r364518/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -USES= pkgconfig >>>>>>> +USES= pkgconfig python:2 >>>>>>> USE_GNOME= atk >>>>>>> -USE_PYTHON= 2 >>>>>>> -USE_PYDISTUTILS=yes >>>>>>> -PYDISTUTILS_AUTOPLIST= yes >>>>>>> +PYTHON_FEATURES=autoplist distutils >>>>>> >>>>>> Yuck, this PYTHON_FEATURES knob is ugly. Why not follow Perl's example >>>>>> instead (USES=perl and USE_PERL)? It both makes more sense and shorter. >>>>> >>>>> ugly or not, it's a matter of taste. But PYTHON_FEATURES usage is inconsistent >>>>> with COMPILER_FEATURES (read only var). Could we rename it while it's not too late? >>>> >>>> Using USE_PYTHON is a problem, since this would be inconsistent with many >>>> other parts of the infrastructure. Aside from that, it would need a lot of >>>> glue code for the transition phase. >>>> >>>> Regardless of that, if portmgr's common suggestion is that XXX_FEATURES is >>>> about testing for a certain feature (read-only), I'm fine with it and open for >>>> suggestions, which describe that infrastructure bit X wants to enable a >>>> certain infrastructure feature. >>>> >>>> PYTHON_FEATURES is in my opinion the best by far. If the consensus is to use >>>> USE_PYTHON, similar to USE_PERL5, this will require us to migrate all python >>>> ports from USE_PYTHON to USES=python first and will take some time. >>> >>> Can it just treat USE_PTYHON as PYTHON_FEATURES if USES=python is defined? >> >> Marcus, how feasible is this (minus the typo) to make the transition >> without a mass conversion first-phase? > > It won't work with the proposed way. It'd be possible to create a check based > what USE_PYTHON contains, thought, but I doubt that check to be completely > bullet-proof, so a conversion to USES=python should be done as fast as > possible. Hmm :| *ponders* >> I like the idea of USE_FOO=bar[:baz]<,qux> being the canonical >> convention for easy transfer of existing knowledge for maintainers (perl >> -> python -> *) > > I brought this to portmgr's attention, so we do not run into this again, when > other parts are converted to USES. As soon as portmgr made a clear statement, > we can start with whatever should be used. Awesome :) Should we quieten the deprecation warnings until we have clarity for moving forward? koobs
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?53E8762D.4070402>