[82233] trunk/dports/python/py-bdist_mpkg/Portfile

[Ryan Schmidt]

On Aug 10, 2011, at 19:49, jmr at macports.org wrote:

> Revision: 82233
>          http://trac.macports.org/changeset/82233
> Author:   jmr at macports.org
> Date:     2011-08-10 17:49:58 -0700 (Wed, 10 Aug 2011)
> Log Message:
> -----------
> py-bdist_mpkg: add version suffix to binary with 2.4 and 2.5
> 
> Modified Paths:
> --------------
>    trunk/dports/python/py-bdist_mpkg/Portfile
> 
> Modified: trunk/dports/python/py-bdist_mpkg/Portfile
> ===================================================================
> --- trunk/dports/python/py-bdist_mpkg/Portfile	2011-08-10 23:43:31 UTC (rev 82232)
> +++ trunk/dports/python/py-bdist_mpkg/Portfile	2011-08-11 00:49:58 UTC (rev 82233)
> @@ -30,10 +30,18 @@
> 
> python.versions     24 25 26 27
> 
> -if {$subport == "py24-bdist_mpkg"} {
> -    depends_lib     port:py-setuptools
> -} elseif {$subport != $name} {
> -    depends_lib     port:py${python.version}-distribute
> +if {$subport != $name} {
> +    if {${python.version} == "24"} {
> +        depends_lib     port:py-setuptools
> +    } else {
> +        depends_lib     port:py${python.version}-distribute
> +    }
> +    if {${python.version} == "24" || ${python.version} == "25"} {
> +        post-destroot {
> +            move ${destroot}${prefix}/bin/bdist_mpkg \
> +                 ${destroot}${prefix}/bin/bdist_mpkg-${python.branch}
> +        }
> +    }

Why don't you just set "python.link_binaries yes" and let the portgroup do it for you? Even better question: why doesn't the portgroup do this automatically? My understanding was that link_binaries was a feature added to the python26 portgroup that nobody ever bothered backporting to the python25 and python24 portgroups, but with the new unified python portgroup, why have we taken a special effort to duplicate that deficiency?