On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 15:45:53 EST erik quanstrom <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Mon Dec 2 15:44:27 EST 2013, [email protected] wrote:
> > On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 15:38:21 EST erik quanstrom <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > > On Mon Dec 2 15:25:33 EST 2013, [email protected] wrote:
> > > > > > python on plan9 can't even handle the codereview extension.
> > > > >
> > > > > i believe that's false. jas' port does a lot of things the
> > > > > prior port does not. it's on bitbucket.
> > > >
> > > > I agree with Erik. Jeff Sickel did a very good job on the
> > > > modern Python port.
> > > >
> > > > If you are afraid to compile it, I'm providing up-to-date
> > > > binaries (Python 2.7.5 and Mercurial 2.8.1) for Plan 9:
> > >
> > > it won't compile unless you're running 9atom. or have integrated
> > > the (extensive) changes to ape, especially in the sockets area.
> >
> > Another reason to break out ports. Ideally they should
> > work any plan9 fork.
>
> i don't see how that follows. changes were needed to ape.
> the patches are sitting in /n/sources/patch.
I am suggesting breaking out just the diffs and new mkfiles in
a separate tree so that one can do
mk all && mk install
This can fetch the necessary bits, apply patches, build, test,
create downloadable binaries (with crypto signatures if you
care) etc. As part of this it can mk any dependencies. One
of which can pull in changes for ape. Right now all this seems
rather manual. As more changes are merged back in the upstream
sources, port diffs can reduce.
