[MacPorts] #33241: py-omniORBpy @ 3.6 new upstream version available
MacPorts
noreply at macports.org
Mon Feb 13 10:45:12 PST 2012
#33241: py-omniORBpy @ 3.6 new upstream version available
------------------------------------+---------------------------------------
Reporter: lockhart@… | Owner: stromnov@…
Type: update | Status: new
Priority: Normal | Milestone:
Component: ports | Version:
Keywords: | Port: py-omniORBpy
------------------------------------+---------------------------------------
Comment(by lockhart@…):
Replying to [comment:1 macsforever2000@…]:
> Trac requires complete email addresses in the Cc field.
>
> This patch is not correct as it stands. You cannot switch to python 2.7
with a py-* port. This port is for python 2.4. Really it needs to be
unified so all python versions are properly covered.
This is exactly the feedback I'm looking for. Do you have an an example of
what "properly covered" entails? Can I implement variants for 2.4 through
2.7 (the omniORB port does this)? I do know how to do those in principle,
but would need to hardcode which variant should be the default for which
version of Mac OS X and that seems clumsy and unsustainable.
Can I detect what variant the (required) omniORB port was installed as and
then use that in this one? Currently there are py25_omniORBpy and
py26_omniORBpy as well as py_omniORBpy and generating py27_omniORBpy seems
like the wrong way to go (if not, then maybe py_omniORBpy should be
retired in favor of py24_omniORBpy. Ugh. But I can do a new py27_omniORBpy
fairly easily if that is preferred.
The biggest issue afaict is to keep py_omniORBpy in sync with omniORB,
which can be built with various versions of python. Maybe if I provide
variants then we can just have the default variant match the same default
as for omniORB? Suggestions please!
--
Ticket URL: <https://trac.macports.org/ticket/33241#comment:2>
MacPorts <http://www.macports.org/>
Ports system for Mac OS
More information about the macports-tickets
mailing list