[MacPorts] #31935: py26-mercurial_keyring @0.4.5 not compatible with mercurial @1.9.3
MacPorts
noreply at macports.org
Mon Nov 7 13:35:47 PST 2011
#31935: py26-mercurial_keyring @0.4.5 not compatible with mercurial @1.9.3
-------------------------------------+--------------------------------------
Reporter: m@… | Owner: and.damore@…
Type: defect | Status: closed
Priority: Normal | Milestone:
Component: ports | Version: 2.0.3
Resolution: fixed | Keywords:
Port: py26-mercurial_keyring |
-------------------------------------+--------------------------------------
Changes (by and.damore@…):
* status: assigned => closed
* resolution: => fixed
Comment:
Replying to [comment:6 m@…]:
> As mercurial now defaults to python27, does it make sense to provide a
mercurial_keyring port for python26 ''only''?
It doesn't now, but I wrote the port before Python 2.7 was ''mercurial''
's default.
> I mean, currently it is not possible to use mercurial_keyring out of the
box. Would it be possible to provide a port for python27 (assuming that
mercurial_keyring is compatible with python27)?
I'll switch ''py26-mercurial_keyring'' and ''py26-keyring'' to python
group.
I updated port in r86990, you should be able to use mercurial_keyring now
by using '''python.version=26''' at ''mercurial'' build command.
I wasn't able to reproduce the issue with 0.4.5 and mercurial using python
2.6.
> Regarding the missing missing extension error, I just found out that I
had set `PYTHONPATH` to
`/opt/local/Library/Frameworks/Python.framework/Versions/2.6/lib/python2.6
/site-packages` for some reason I do not remember anymore. Of course, in
that way the extension gets found, even by python27. Thanks for the hint!
That explains why the extension was being found.
--
Ticket URL: <https://trac.macports.org/ticket/31935#comment:7>
MacPorts <http://www.macports.org/>
Ports system for Mac OS
More information about the macports-tickets
mailing list