[22092] trunk/dports/python

[Jyrki Wahlstedt]

On 18.2.2007, at 19.39, Markus Weissmann wrote:

> On 18.02.2007, at 17:47, Yves de Champlain wrote:
>
>> Le 07-02-17 à 14:15, Blair Zajac a écrit :
>>
>>> Yves de Champlain wrote:
>>>> Le 07-02-17 à 11:32, Yves de Champlain a écrit :
>>>>>
>>>>> Le 07-02-17 à 11:18, source_changes at macosforge.org  
>>>>> <mailto:source_changes at macosforge.org> a écrit :
>>>>>
>>>>>> Revision
>>>>>>     22092 <http://trac.macosforge.org/projects/macports/ 
>>>>>> changeset/22092>
>>>>>> Author
>>>>>>     mww at macports.org <mailto:mww at macports.org>
>>>>>> Date
>>>>>>     2007-02-17 08:18:26 -0800 (Sat, 17 Feb 2007)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>       Log Message
>>>>>>
>>>>>> new port py25-bz2 - python 2.5 bindings to bzip2
>>>>>
>>>>> I am a bit confused.  Python 2.5 is presented as current  
>>>>> production version on python.org, but these commits make it  
>>>>> look like a special case.  Is there some sort of problem with  
>>>>> python 2.5 on Mac ?  Or is this a problem with how python is  
>>>>> managed in MacPorts ?
>>>> Just let me be a little more precise : could there be py24-* and  
>>>> py25-* ports for python ports that use a specific PortGroup and  
>>>> py-* ports for python packages that don't use a PortGroup ?
>>>
>>> But wouldn't that require the Python builds to have a common  
>>> shared place to look for non-binary modules, so we only have to  
>>> depend upon one port.  Also, non-binary modules that depends upon  
>>> binary modules would still need to be versioned for each version  
>>> of Python, I think :)
>>
>> Yes, that is part of the question.
>>
>> I maintain a few python ports (gtk2, gobject and cairo) while not  
>> being really proficient with python setup and configuration.
>>
>> But these ports don't belong to a portgroup but rather look for  
>> python through a configure script and will accept both 2.4 and  
>> 2.5, so should I still make py25 versions of them ?
>>
>
> Depends: If the port just needs "some" python interpreter at run  
> time, you don't need a py- named port at all, so are just for  
> python modules.
> For python modules the problem is, that they install themselves in  
> $prefix/lib/python2.4/ (or 2.5); we can't unify those two (or taken  
> 2.3 into account: three) directories, or at least I wouldn't try to  
> - there is code that works with 2.4 but not 2.5 and vice versa, so  
> we'll run into problems here, sooner or later.
>
> Currently our "main" python is v2.4 and I'd say we'd stay with that  
> at least until 2.5.1 is out. But even then there is software that  
> only will work with 2.4, so please don't move py- (2.4) ports to  
> py25- (2.5) ones. If you need a python 2.5 version of that module,  
> duplicate the port. Duplicates are fine here, as I'd expect that  
> some modules will switch to 2.5 compatible code so we will probably  
> have something like this in the future:
> py-module, version 1.8
> py25-module, version 2.2
>
> So we should approach this "switch" slowly, duplicating all the  
> modules we need for 2.5 - if they work. In some years we probably  
> can then nuke the py- (2.4) modules when the py41 ports take  
> over... ;)
>
>
> cheers,
>
> -Markus
>
> --
> Markus W. Weissmann
> http://www.mweissmann.de/
Well,
I beg to differ once again (though I am not sure it makes any  
difference). The ports with no version number should always be for  
the latest versions. If ports are duplicated or version-dependent  
ports are written, they should always be for previous versions that  
for one reason or other are incompatible. The structure should be  
simple and consistent (e.g. like in the system frameworks), that  
benefits us all. But again, I do not make the decisions here (though  
if all ports are handled like this, what is the result).

!
! Jyrki Wahlstedt
!	skype:jyrkiwahlstedt
!	http://www.wahlstedt.fi/jyrki/
!
! Our life is no dream; but it ought to become one and perhaps will.
! PGP key ID: 0x139CC386 fingerprint: F355 B46F 026C B8C1 89C0  A780  
6366 EFD9 139C C386