ports/lang major version updates outside of OS version updates

[Steve Kargl]

On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 07:35:25AM -0700, Roger Marquis wrote:
> >> On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 11:18:50PM +0200, Dima Pasechnik wrote:
> >>> So there is more "software bureaucracy" here than just applying one patch.
> 
> You sure about that Dima?  Whether one or several the patching doesn't
> appear to be complicated or difficult to maintain.
> 
> > On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 02:58:22PM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
> > For those people following along in the mailing list, Dima
> > sent me a private reply that took this thread off the list.
> > I am done trying to help fix the python ports.
> 
> Thanks for the good work Steve.
> 
> Many of us are still wondering why this change was made outside of a
> major OS version update.  Wouldn't that have prevented the build bug
> which started this thread?
> 
> Considering the incompatibilities between python 2.X and 3.x (which
> Guido has admitted was a mistake) please consider this a ports policy
> request to require significant lang/* version updates be predicated on
> equally significant OS version updates.
> 

My patches have absolutely nothing to do with making
3.6 the default python version.

I have added functions to libm that are included in
two ISO standards.  This causes a name conflict with
sinpi() in python.  My patches trivially rename 
python's sinpi() to avoid the conflict.  For some reason
beyond the comprehension of mortal man, python at freebsd
refuses to add the patches to the port.

-- 
Steve