Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2019 11:59:19 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 237795] devel/gobject-introspection: "needs Python 3.4 at least, but 2.7 was specified." Message-ID: <bug-237795-7788-lgUDaDP3jA@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-237795-7788@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-237795-7788@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D237795 --- Comment #9 from Kubilay Kocak <koobs@FreeBSD.org> --- (In reply to Mikhail Teterin from comment #8) Sure, got it. Thanks for helping me get there. And the dependency is satisf= ied after manual installation because it's a binary/filename *_DEPENDS, not a package type. So for case (2) of your two types, this type, one would need to be able to, minimally at least, based on what we know now: a) more finely declare the dependency kind (so as not to propagate for it) b) declare it on a per-dependency basis (have it not apply to any other thi= ngs where it may not apply) Independent to the feasibility, something like that is going to require some very clear and precise "spec'ing" out before it goes to portmgr, as I suspe= ct it will need to.=20 This is because I don't see this as being a bug, but rather a feature to mo= re finely control (perhaps more precisely: ability to constrain) python version propagation, to take into account how a dependency is used. It might be worth us chewing the fat on IRC (#freebsd-python) and coming up with an unambiguous and lightweight "PEP" for it. Who knows, we may even be able to come up with a hack^W workaround in the short term, or other alternatives --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-237795-7788-lgUDaDP3jA>