Re: Python min version bumped from 2.4+ to 2.5+
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 8/30/11 4:25 PM, Ruslan Mahmatkhanov wrote: Greg Larkin wrote on 31.08.2011 00:07: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 8/30/11 10:26 AM, Ruslan Mahmatkhanov wrote: Greg Larkin wrote on 30.08.2011 17:56: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 8/30/11 9:38 AM, Ruslan Mahmatkhanov wrote: Greg Larkin wrote on 30.08.2011 17:05: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Martin, I have a question about a commit you made in February 2011: http://www.freshports.org/commit.php?message_id=201102250750.p1p7ofdg016...@repoman.freebsd.orgfiles=yes Part of the commit changed: USE_PYTHON=2.4+ to USE_PYTHON=2.5+ Was there a specific reason for doing so? I am running various tinderbox builds to check on port usage of the USE_PYTHON variable, and I noticed that devel/py-setuptools no longer builds if Python 2.4 is selected. I'd like to restore that capability, but before I send a PR, I wanted to check with you first. Thank you, Greg - -- Greg Larkin http://www.FreeBSD.org/ - The Power To Serve http://www.sourcehosting.net/ - Ready. Set. Code. http://twitter.com/cpucycle/ - Follow you, follow me I'm sorry for sail in, but i think that the reason is that python24 is reached it's EOL long time ago. Actually the only supported python releases atm according to python.org are - 2.7.2 and 3.2.1, and developers highly encourages the users to move to this versions. 2.5 and 2.6 are in security-fix-only mode, there will be no ANY releases for this branches after October 2011 and October 2013 respectively, while 2.4 does not get security-fixes even. There is also this answer from Martin in this pr: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/155526: python24 goes to the end of month, this port is on the todo for removal Hi Ruslan, Hi Greg Ok, thank you for the explanation. Shall I mark python24 for removal from the tree or file a PR for python@ to do it? It's not so easy actually, since we have many ports in the tree that still depend on 2.4 (notably all that zope/plone stuff) and i believe it was the reason why python24 still not be removed in the first place. I do some work about eliminating python24 usage in the tree (yesterdays py-pysqlite2x stuff - one of it), but it's not that fast. I also working on porting zope2.13/plone4 (that supports python 2.6 and 2.7) and i'm planing to finish it this weekend after proper testing. After that we can deprecate/remove existing zope/plone (not longer supported upstream). Ok, it's a bigger job than I realized! FYI, I have been running tinderbox builds with PYTHON_VERSION and PYTHON_DEFAULT_VERSION set to python2.4, python2.5, etc. to find out if ports with USE_PYTHON=yes need to be constrained a bit more. Yes, there is a lot of work. We have USE_PYTHON with bogus values like 1.5+, 1.6+, 2.0+ etc :). And most of python ports will not work with python3x so they should be constrained with -2.7 too. Do you think it's helpful then to run these builds with different Python versions enforced? I thought that getting the version ranges in the USE_PYTHON variable tightened up might help reduce the number of folks who run into build problems. I would like to do the same thing with Perl, GCC, and others. I, personally, believe that this almost can't help to identify version-specific problems, since commonly there is almost no build problems on different python versions (it's rarely when setup.py actually checking which python version it was run with). The problems arises on runtime stage, when apps starting to import modules, that may not exist in this particular python version or that installed by missing dependencies, etc. Such problems may be identified only with manual checking/greping/app docs reading. But this is just my point. You'd better to ask Martin - he is committer that skilled with python stuff in ports, and i'm not proper person to take responsibility for decisions like that :). I just can to sound my point on this. However, it definitely will help to identify gcc version-specific build problems. I have found some build problems with ports that use USE_PYTHON=yes instead of restricting it to a specific version, e.g. copying build/lib/mpd.py - /usr/local/lib/python2.4/site-packages byte-compiling /usr/local/lib/python2.4/site-packages/mpd.py to mpd.pyc File /usr/local/lib/python2.4/site-packages/mpd.py, line 293 yield retval() SyntaxError: 'yield' not allowed in a 'try' block with a 'finally' clause writing byte-compilation script '/tmp/tmpoLWlQC.py' /usr/local/bin/python2.4 -O /tmp/tmpoLWlQC.py File /usr/local/lib/python2.4/site-packages/mpd.py, line 293 yield retval() SyntaxError: 'yield' not allowed in a 'try' block with a 'finally' clause removing /tmp/tmpoLWlQC.py /bin/mkdir -p /usr/local/share/doc/py24-mpd Admittedly, this
Re: Python min version bumped from 2.4+ to 2.5+
Greg Larkin wrote on 31.08.2011 19:27: Hi Martin, I have a question about a commit you made in February 2011: http://www.freshports.org/commit.php?message_id=201102250750.p1p7ofdg016...@repoman.freebsd.orgfiles=yes Part of the commit changed: USE_PYTHON=2.4+ to USE_PYTHON=2.5+ Was there a specific reason for doing so? I am running various tinderbox builds to check on port usage of the USE_PYTHON variable, and I noticed that devel/py-setuptools no longer builds if Python 2.4 is selected. I'd like to restore that capability, but before I send a PR, I wanted to check with you first. Thank you, Greg - -- Greg Larkin http://www.FreeBSD.org/ - The Power To Serve http://www.sourcehosting.net/ - Ready. Set. Code. http://twitter.com/cpucycle/ - Follow you, follow me I'm sorry for sail in, but i think that the reason is that python24 is reached it's EOL long time ago. Actually the only supported python releases atm according to python.org are - 2.7.2 and 3.2.1, and developers highly encourages the users to move to this versions. 2.5 and 2.6 are in security-fix-only mode, there will be no ANY releases for this branches after October 2011 and October 2013 respectively, while 2.4 does not get security-fixes even. There is also this answer from Martin in this pr: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/155526: python24 goes to the end of month, this port is on the todo for removal Hi Ruslan, Hi Greg Ok, thank you for the explanation. Shall I mark python24 for removal from the tree or file a PR for python@ to do it? It's not so easy actually, since we have many ports in the tree that still depend on 2.4 (notably all that zope/plone stuff) and i believe it was the reason why python24 still not be removed in the first place. I do some work about eliminating python24 usage in the tree (yesterdays py-pysqlite2x stuff - one of it), but it's not that fast. I also working on porting zope2.13/plone4 (that supports python 2.6 and 2.7) and i'm planing to finish it this weekend after proper testing. After that we can deprecate/remove existing zope/plone (not longer supported upstream). Ok, it's a bigger job than I realized! FYI, I have been running tinderbox builds with PYTHON_VERSION and PYTHON_DEFAULT_VERSION set to python2.4, python2.5, etc. to find out if ports with USE_PYTHON=yes need to be constrained a bit more. Yes, there is a lot of work. We have USE_PYTHON with bogus values like 1.5+, 1.6+, 2.0+ etc :). And most of python ports will not work with python3x so they should be constrained with -2.7 too. Do you think it's helpful then to run these builds with different Python versions enforced? I thought that getting the version ranges in the USE_PYTHON variable tightened up might help reduce the number of folks who run into build problems. I would like to do the same thing with Perl, GCC, and others. I, personally, believe that this almost can't help to identify version-specific problems, since commonly there is almost no build problems on different python versions (it's rarely when setup.py actually checking which python version it was run with). The problems arises on runtime stage, when apps starting to import modules, that may not exist in this particular python version or that installed by missing dependencies, etc. Such problems may be identified only with manual checking/greping/app docs reading. But this is just my point. You'd better to ask Martin - he is committer that skilled with python stuff in ports, and i'm not proper person to take responsibility for decisions like that :). I just can to sound my point on this. However, it definitely will help to identify gcc version-specific build problems. I have found some build problems with ports that use USE_PYTHON=yes instead of restricting it to a specific version, e.g. copying build/lib/mpd.py - /usr/local/lib/python2.4/site-packages byte-compiling /usr/local/lib/python2.4/site-packages/mpd.py to mpd.pyc File /usr/local/lib/python2.4/site-packages/mpd.py, line 293 yield retval() SyntaxError: 'yield' not allowed in a 'try' block with a 'finally' clause writing byte-compilation script '/tmp/tmpoLWlQC.py' /usr/local/bin/python2.4 -O /tmp/tmpoLWlQC.py File /usr/local/lib/python2.4/site-packages/mpd.py, line 293 yield retval() SyntaxError: 'yield' not allowed in a 'try' block with a 'finally' clause removing /tmp/tmpoLWlQC.py /bin/mkdir -p /usr/local/share/doc/py24-mpd Admittedly, this particular error was encountered while using Python 2.4 as the default version, but I plan to run builds with all of the other versions looking for similar build problems. Regards, Greg Ok, this particular error is well known and 24-specific: http://docs.python.org/reference/simple_stmts.html As of Python version 2.5, the yield statement is now allowed in the try clause of a try ... finally construct. If the generator is not resumed before it is finalized (by reaching a zero
Python min version bumped from 2.4+ to 2.5+
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Martin, I have a question about a commit you made in February 2011: http://www.freshports.org/commit.php?message_id=201102250750.p1p7ofdg016...@repoman.freebsd.orgfiles=yes Part of the commit changed: USE_PYTHON= 2.4+ to USE_PYTHON= 2.5+ Was there a specific reason for doing so? I am running various tinderbox builds to check on port usage of the USE_PYTHON variable, and I noticed that devel/py-setuptools no longer builds if Python 2.4 is selected. I'd like to restore that capability, but before I send a PR, I wanted to check with you first. Thank you, Greg - -- Greg Larkin http://www.FreeBSD.org/ - The Power To Serve http://www.sourcehosting.net/ - Ready. Set. Code. http://twitter.com/cpucycle/ - Follow you, follow me -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk5c4BUACgkQ0sRouByUApDZKwCeMcUjlshPkFhNZrTQtQ1+Ywyu bNQAnjkkk0Sf1ntQXawhiMyhamPz0haz =aOJw -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Python min version bumped from 2.4+ to 2.5+
Greg Larkin wrote on 30.08.2011 17:05: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Martin, I have a question about a commit you made in February 2011: http://www.freshports.org/commit.php?message_id=201102250750.p1p7ofdg016...@repoman.freebsd.orgfiles=yes Part of the commit changed: USE_PYTHON= 2.4+ to USE_PYTHON= 2.5+ Was there a specific reason for doing so? I am running various tinderbox builds to check on port usage of the USE_PYTHON variable, and I noticed that devel/py-setuptools no longer builds if Python 2.4 is selected. I'd like to restore that capability, but before I send a PR, I wanted to check with you first. Thank you, Greg - -- Greg Larkin http://www.FreeBSD.org/ - The Power To Serve http://www.sourcehosting.net/ - Ready. Set. Code. http://twitter.com/cpucycle/ - Follow you, follow me I'm sorry for sail in, but i think that the reason is that python24 is reached it's EOL long time ago. Actually the only supported python releases atm according to python.org are - 2.7.2 and 3.2.1, and developers highly encourages the users to move to this versions. 2.5 and 2.6 are in security-fix-only mode, there will be no ANY releases for this branches after October 2011 and October 2013 respectively, while 2.4 does not get security-fixes even. There is also this answer from Martin in this pr: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/155526: python24 goes to the end of month, this port is on the todo for removal -- Regards, Ruslan Tinderboxing kills... the drives. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Python min version bumped from 2.4+ to 2.5+
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 8/30/11 9:38 AM, Ruslan Mahmatkhanov wrote: Greg Larkin wrote on 30.08.2011 17:05: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Martin, I have a question about a commit you made in February 2011: http://www.freshports.org/commit.php?message_id=201102250750.p1p7ofdg016...@repoman.freebsd.orgfiles=yes Part of the commit changed: USE_PYTHON=2.4+ to USE_PYTHON=2.5+ Was there a specific reason for doing so? I am running various tinderbox builds to check on port usage of the USE_PYTHON variable, and I noticed that devel/py-setuptools no longer builds if Python 2.4 is selected. I'd like to restore that capability, but before I send a PR, I wanted to check with you first. Thank you, Greg - -- Greg Larkin http://www.FreeBSD.org/ - The Power To Serve http://www.sourcehosting.net/ - Ready. Set. Code. http://twitter.com/cpucycle/ - Follow you, follow me I'm sorry for sail in, but i think that the reason is that python24 is reached it's EOL long time ago. Actually the only supported python releases atm according to python.org are - 2.7.2 and 3.2.1, and developers highly encourages the users to move to this versions. 2.5 and 2.6 are in security-fix-only mode, there will be no ANY releases for this branches after October 2011 and October 2013 respectively, while 2.4 does not get security-fixes even. There is also this answer from Martin in this pr: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/155526: python24 goes to the end of month, this port is on the todo for removal Hi Ruslan, Ok, thank you for the explanation. Shall I mark python24 for removal from the tree or file a PR for python@ to do it? FYI, I have been running tinderbox builds with PYTHON_VERSION and PYTHON_DEFAULT_VERSION set to python2.4, python2.5, etc. to find out if ports with USE_PYTHON=yes need to be constrained a bit more. I figured that python2.4 was supported since it was still in the tree and wasn't marked for removal yet, but I admin that I didn't check python.org for confirmation. Regards, Greg - -- Greg Larkin http://www.FreeBSD.org/ - The Power To Serve http://www.sourcehosting.net/ - Ready. Set. Code. http://twitter.com/cpucycle/ - Follow you, follow me -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk5c7B4ACgkQ0sRouByUApAZOQCcC0YgAzDxDj78I9u35+H53fur be8AmQFjWrGJ/xmjYpPp6ZkKB+ejDfq9 =tK4y -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Python min version bumped from 2.4+ to 2.5+
Greg Larkin wrote on 30.08.2011 17:56: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 8/30/11 9:38 AM, Ruslan Mahmatkhanov wrote: Greg Larkin wrote on 30.08.2011 17:05: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Martin, I have a question about a commit you made in February 2011: http://www.freshports.org/commit.php?message_id=201102250750.p1p7ofdg016...@repoman.freebsd.orgfiles=yes Part of the commit changed: USE_PYTHON=2.4+ to USE_PYTHON=2.5+ Was there a specific reason for doing so? I am running various tinderbox builds to check on port usage of the USE_PYTHON variable, and I noticed that devel/py-setuptools no longer builds if Python 2.4 is selected. I'd like to restore that capability, but before I send a PR, I wanted to check with you first. Thank you, Greg - -- Greg Larkin http://www.FreeBSD.org/ - The Power To Serve http://www.sourcehosting.net/ - Ready. Set. Code. http://twitter.com/cpucycle/ - Follow you, follow me I'm sorry for sail in, but i think that the reason is that python24 is reached it's EOL long time ago. Actually the only supported python releases atm according to python.org are - 2.7.2 and 3.2.1, and developers highly encourages the users to move to this versions. 2.5 and 2.6 are in security-fix-only mode, there will be no ANY releases for this branches after October 2011 and October 2013 respectively, while 2.4 does not get security-fixes even. There is also this answer from Martin in this pr: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/155526: python24 goes to the end of month, this port is on the todo for removal Hi Ruslan, Hi Greg Ok, thank you for the explanation. Shall I mark python24 for removal from the tree or file a PR for python@ to do it? It's not so easy actually, since we have many ports in the tree that still depend on 2.4 (notably all that zope/plone stuff) and i believe it was the reason why python24 still not be removed in the first place. I do some work about eliminating python24 usage in the tree (yesterdays py-pysqlite2x stuff - one of it), but it's not that fast. I also working on porting zope2.13/plone4 (that supports python 2.6 and 2.7) and i'm planing to finish it this weekend after proper testing. After that we can deprecate/remove existing zope/plone (not longer supported upstream). FYI, I have been running tinderbox builds with PYTHON_VERSION and PYTHON_DEFAULT_VERSION set to python2.4, python2.5, etc. to find out if ports with USE_PYTHON=yes need to be constrained a bit more. Yes, there is a lot of work. We have USE_PYTHON with bogus values like 1.5+, 1.6+, 2.0+ etc :). And most of python ports will not work with python3x so they should be constrained with -2.7 too. I figured that python2.4 was supported since it was still in the tree and wasn't marked for removal yet, but I admin that I didn't check python.org for confirmation. As i already stated, i believe it's still there because there is dependent ports. And as far i know in linux world noone shipping python24 this days. Even RHEL/CentOS finally switched to 2.6.5 in their 6.x branches. Regards, Greg - -- Greg Larkin http://www.FreeBSD.org/ - The Power To Serve http://www.sourcehosting.net/ - Ready. Set. Code. http://twitter.com/cpucycle/ - Follow you, follow me -- Regards, Ruslan Tinderboxing kills... the drives. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Python min version bumped from 2.4+ to 2.5+
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 8/30/11 10:26 AM, Ruslan Mahmatkhanov wrote: Greg Larkin wrote on 30.08.2011 17:56: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 8/30/11 9:38 AM, Ruslan Mahmatkhanov wrote: Greg Larkin wrote on 30.08.2011 17:05: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Martin, I have a question about a commit you made in February 2011: http://www.freshports.org/commit.php?message_id=201102250750.p1p7ofdg016...@repoman.freebsd.orgfiles=yes Part of the commit changed: USE_PYTHON=2.4+ to USE_PYTHON=2.5+ Was there a specific reason for doing so? I am running various tinderbox builds to check on port usage of the USE_PYTHON variable, and I noticed that devel/py-setuptools no longer builds if Python 2.4 is selected. I'd like to restore that capability, but before I send a PR, I wanted to check with you first. Thank you, Greg - -- Greg Larkin http://www.FreeBSD.org/ - The Power To Serve http://www.sourcehosting.net/ - Ready. Set. Code. http://twitter.com/cpucycle/ - Follow you, follow me I'm sorry for sail in, but i think that the reason is that python24 is reached it's EOL long time ago. Actually the only supported python releases atm according to python.org are - 2.7.2 and 3.2.1, and developers highly encourages the users to move to this versions. 2.5 and 2.6 are in security-fix-only mode, there will be no ANY releases for this branches after October 2011 and October 2013 respectively, while 2.4 does not get security-fixes even. There is also this answer from Martin in this pr: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/155526: python24 goes to the end of month, this port is on the todo for removal Hi Ruslan, Hi Greg Ok, thank you for the explanation. Shall I mark python24 for removal from the tree or file a PR for python@ to do it? It's not so easy actually, since we have many ports in the tree that still depend on 2.4 (notably all that zope/plone stuff) and i believe it was the reason why python24 still not be removed in the first place. I do some work about eliminating python24 usage in the tree (yesterdays py-pysqlite2x stuff - one of it), but it's not that fast. I also working on porting zope2.13/plone4 (that supports python 2.6 and 2.7) and i'm planing to finish it this weekend after proper testing. After that we can deprecate/remove existing zope/plone (not longer supported upstream). Ok, it's a bigger job than I realized! FYI, I have been running tinderbox builds with PYTHON_VERSION and PYTHON_DEFAULT_VERSION set to python2.4, python2.5, etc. to find out if ports with USE_PYTHON=yes need to be constrained a bit more. Yes, there is a lot of work. We have USE_PYTHON with bogus values like 1.5+, 1.6+, 2.0+ etc :). And most of python ports will not work with python3x so they should be constrained with -2.7 too. Do you think it's helpful then to run these builds with different Python versions enforced? I thought that getting the version ranges in the USE_PYTHON variable tightened up might help reduce the number of folks who run into build problems. I would like to do the same thing with Perl, GCC, and others. I figured that python2.4 was supported since it was still in the tree and wasn't marked for removal yet, but I admin that I didn't check python.org for confirmation. As i already stated, i believe it's still there because there is dependent ports. And as far i know in linux world noone shipping python24 this days. Even RHEL/CentOS finally switched to 2.6.5 in their 6.x branches. Regards, Greg - -- Greg Larkin http://www.FreeBSD.org/ - The Power To Serve http://www.sourcehosting.net/ - Ready. Set. Code. http://twitter.com/cpucycle/ - Follow you, follow me -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk5dQvsACgkQ0sRouByUApDH2wCgjulXl1vUHOGO4ubs4rZKLTlQ kMMAoLKBSArHGQkCT75iBQuLUQmsDuXb =i3ak -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Python min version bumped from 2.4+ to 2.5+
Greg Larkin wrote on 31.08.2011 00:07: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 8/30/11 10:26 AM, Ruslan Mahmatkhanov wrote: Greg Larkin wrote on 30.08.2011 17:56: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 8/30/11 9:38 AM, Ruslan Mahmatkhanov wrote: Greg Larkin wrote on 30.08.2011 17:05: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Martin, I have a question about a commit you made in February 2011: http://www.freshports.org/commit.php?message_id=201102250750.p1p7ofdg016...@repoman.freebsd.orgfiles=yes Part of the commit changed: USE_PYTHON=2.4+ to USE_PYTHON=2.5+ Was there a specific reason for doing so? I am running various tinderbox builds to check on port usage of the USE_PYTHON variable, and I noticed that devel/py-setuptools no longer builds if Python 2.4 is selected. I'd like to restore that capability, but before I send a PR, I wanted to check with you first. Thank you, Greg - -- Greg Larkin http://www.FreeBSD.org/ - The Power To Serve http://www.sourcehosting.net/ - Ready. Set. Code. http://twitter.com/cpucycle/ - Follow you, follow me I'm sorry for sail in, but i think that the reason is that python24 is reached it's EOL long time ago. Actually the only supported python releases atm according to python.org are - 2.7.2 and 3.2.1, and developers highly encourages the users to move to this versions. 2.5 and 2.6 are in security-fix-only mode, there will be no ANY releases for this branches after October 2011 and October 2013 respectively, while 2.4 does not get security-fixes even. There is also this answer from Martin in this pr: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/155526: python24 goes to the end of month, this port is on the todo for removal Hi Ruslan, Hi Greg Ok, thank you for the explanation. Shall I mark python24 for removal from the tree or file a PR for python@ to do it? It's not so easy actually, since we have many ports in the tree that still depend on 2.4 (notably all that zope/plone stuff) and i believe it was the reason why python24 still not be removed in the first place. I do some work about eliminating python24 usage in the tree (yesterdays py-pysqlite2x stuff - one of it), but it's not that fast. I also working on porting zope2.13/plone4 (that supports python 2.6 and 2.7) and i'm planing to finish it this weekend after proper testing. After that we can deprecate/remove existing zope/plone (not longer supported upstream). Ok, it's a bigger job than I realized! FYI, I have been running tinderbox builds with PYTHON_VERSION and PYTHON_DEFAULT_VERSION set to python2.4, python2.5, etc. to find out if ports with USE_PYTHON=yes need to be constrained a bit more. Yes, there is a lot of work. We have USE_PYTHON with bogus values like 1.5+, 1.6+, 2.0+ etc :). And most of python ports will not work with python3x so they should be constrained with -2.7 too. Do you think it's helpful then to run these builds with different Python versions enforced? I thought that getting the version ranges in the USE_PYTHON variable tightened up might help reduce the number of folks who run into build problems. I would like to do the same thing with Perl, GCC, and others. I, personally, believe that this almost can't help to identify version-specific problems, since commonly there is almost no build problems on different python versions (it's rarely when setup.py actually checking which python version it was run with). The problems arises on runtime stage, when apps starting to import modules, that may not exist in this particular python version or that installed by missing dependencies, etc. Such problems may be identified only with manual checking/greping/app docs reading. But this is just my point. You'd better to ask Martin - he is committer that skilled with python stuff in ports, and i'm not proper person to take responsibility for decisions like that :). I just can to sound my point on this. However, it definitely will help to identify gcc version-specific build problems. I figured that python2.4 was supported since it was still in the tree and wasn't marked for removal yet, but I admin that I didn't check python.org for confirmation. As i already stated, i believe it's still there because there is dependent ports. And as far i know in linux world noone shipping python24 this days. Even RHEL/CentOS finally switched to 2.6.5 in their 6.x branches. Regards, Greg - -- Greg Larkin http://www.FreeBSD.org/ - The Power To Serve http://www.sourcehosting.net/ - Ready. Set. Code. http://twitter.com/cpucycle/ - Follow you, follow me -- Regards, Ruslan Tinderboxing kills... the drives. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Python min version bumped from 2.4+ to 2.5+
In fact if use use_python=yes default is 27 we cant set python24 for removal yet because we have fix first all zope stuff. Am back to the game after Holiday Sent from my iPhone On Aug 30, 2011, at 21:56, Greg Larkin glar...@freebsd.org wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 8/30/11 9:38 AM, Ruslan Mahmatkhanov wrote: Greg Larkin wrote on 30.08.2011 17:05: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Martin, I have a question about a commit you made in February 2011: http://www.freshports.org/commit.php?message_id=201102250750.p1p7ofdg016...@repoman.freebsd.orgfiles=yes Part of the commit changed: USE_PYTHON=2.4+ to USE_PYTHON=2.5+ Was there a specific reason for doing so? I am running various tinderbox builds to check on port usage of the USE_PYTHON variable, and I noticed that devel/py-setuptools no longer builds if Python 2.4 is selected. I'd like to restore that capability, but before I send a PR, I wanted to check with you first. Thank you, Greg - -- Greg Larkin http://www.FreeBSD.org/ - The Power To Serve http://www.sourcehosting.net/ - Ready. Set. Code. http://twitter.com/cpucycle/ - Follow you, follow me I'm sorry for sail in, but i think that the reason is that python24 is reached it's EOL long time ago. Actually the only supported python releases atm according to python.org are - 2.7.2 and 3.2.1, and developers highly encourages the users to move to this versions. 2.5 and 2.6 are in security-fix-only mode, there will be no ANY releases for this branches after October 2011 and October 2013 respectively, while 2.4 does not get security-fixes even. There is also this answer from Martin in this pr: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/155526: python24 goes to the end of month, this port is on the todo for removal Hi Ruslan, Ok, thank you for the explanation. Shall I mark python24 for removal from the tree or file a PR for python@ to do it? FYI, I have been running tinderbox builds with PYTHON_VERSION and PYTHON_DEFAULT_VERSION set to python2.4, python2.5, etc. to find out if ports with USE_PYTHON=yes need to be constrained a bit more. I figured that python2.4 was supported since it was still in the tree and wasn't marked for removal yet, but I admin that I didn't check python.org for confirmation. Regards, Greg - -- Greg Larkin http://www.FreeBSD.org/ - The Power To Serve http://www.sourcehosting.net/ - Ready. Set. Code. http://twitter.com/cpucycle/ - Follow you, follow me -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk5c7B4ACgkQ0sRouByUApAZOQCcC0YgAzDxDj78I9u35+H53fur be8AmQFjWrGJ/xmjYpPp6ZkKB+ejDfq9 =tK4y -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
