Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 24 Jan 2020 14:56:28 -0500 (EST)
To:        freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: Is this just the way it is??
Message-ID:  <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References:  <> <>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
  On Fri, 24 Jan 2020, Lowell Gilbert wrote:

> Doug Denault <> writes:
>> So is this just the way things are? Relative to python, I'm 99% sure
>> python36-3.6.9_1 works just as well as python36-3.6.9_3 or
>> python37-3.7.6. I thought (hoped??) the with recent change to
>> package/ports would result them not being this tied to sub-sub version
>> changes.
>> I'm just going for a yes or no. In the past you had a python 3 and 2.7
>> if you needed it. No so now I guess??
> You shouldn't need the python36 versions at all.  If you follow
> the UPDATING directions, you *should* end up without them.

ah - /usr/ports/UPDATING  -- thank you

Don't know that I have gone past /usr/src/UPDATING, silly me :(

    For ports users wanting to keep version 3.6 as default,
    add DEFAULT_VERSIONS+= python=3.6 python3=3.6 to make.conf

and (maybe)

      AFFECTS: users of Qt 5 in presence of binutils
     ...lib/ multiple definition of `__bss_start at Qt_5'
     ...lib/ first defined here
     ...lib/ multiple definition of `_edata at Qt_5'
     ...lib/ first defined here
     ...lib/ multiple definition of `_end at Qt_5'

So python for sure - thanks again. With some of the sub-sub version stuff can 
the port/package makers not cover this with the way the Makefile-s define 
requirements? Qt is a pretty basic component. It just went 4-->5 I do not 
remember having this issue during the "4" days.

Sad to say if I knew about /usr/ports/UPDATING I forgot. Call it a senior 
moment. Thanks guys


Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <>