On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 08:54:51AM +0800, Li-Wen Hsu wrote: > On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 19:37:40 +0200, Erwin Lansing wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 05:22:14PM +0800, Li-Wen Hsu wrote: > > > >> > > > >> I think these two are not an issue. ?Default Python version is > > > >> switched to 2.6. > > > >> > > > >> But how this report generated? ?Switching happened before > > > >> databases/py25-bsddb repocpoied. > > > >> > > > > The script is in Tools/scripts/check-latest-link. ?Could this be caused > > > > by the installed python version on the system it runs on? > > > > > > Sounds possible, and that's what bsd.python.mk does. > > > databases/py25-bsddb is a slave port of databases/py-bsddb, > > > which generates python 2.5 package for some ports depend on > > > specified python version. When a system with python 2.5 > > > as the default setting, databases/py-bsddb and databases/py25-bsddb > > > should generate same package. So now the problem is, is it OK for them > > > have same LATEST_LINK? Or we can just ignore this problem, since this > > > should not effect official package build, and the latest links on the ftp. > > > > > As you probably saw on the ports list, this also broke INDEX (not > > noticed before because the INDEX script has wedged it zfs mount). It > > looks like overriding LOCALBASE to /nonexistent does fix both issue as > > the script will no longer see the locally installed python version. > > This solves this issue. > > Sorry that I am a bit confusted about what you mean. Are you suggesting > me to override these ports' LOCALBASE to /nonexistent ? Or this means > that everything works fine now? > The latter. I was just explaining what I changed in the script to make it less confused. No need for you to change anything.
Cheers, -erwin -- Erwin Lansing (o_ _o) http://droso.org \\\_\ /_/// The rest is silence <____) (____> er...@lansing.dk
pgpmJRgkqQKoV.pgp
Description: PGP signature