USE_ZOPE vs. python modules

[Hye-Shik Chang]

On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 10:28:35AM +0100, Oliver Eikemeier wrote:
> Dear maintainers,
> 
> the breakage of www/zope-cmfphoto
>  http://bento.freebsd.org/errorlogs/i386-4-full/zope-cmfphoto-0.4.r2.log
> seems to have roots in the current bsd.python.mk structure.
> 
> Basically if you define USE_ZOPE in a port, you'll get Python 2.1 by 
> default,
> if you just define USE_PYTHON You'll get Python 2.3.
> 
> The result is that if a port that uses zope depends on an another that 
> doesn't,
> you'll get different versions of the python modules (py21-imaging vs. 
> py23-imaging
> in this case), which breaks installation.

Correct.

> The workaround would be either to set the system-wide default to 2.1 or 
> update
> zope to a version supporting 2.3. I am aware of the recent thread `Zope 
> 2.6.4 vs 2.7',
> I just wanted to notify you because www/zope-cmfphoto is marked as BROKEN 
> (and
> scheduled for removal), for reasons that lie beyond the responsibilites of 
> this
> port (or its maintainer).

I'd like to see updating www/zope to 2.7 as soon as possible. I
heard that 2.7 has enough backward-compatibility and we can avoid
the problem then.  Because current port infrastructure doesn't allow
multiple installations from a same origin, we'll need to introduce
"instance" concept for pkgdb. eg.

this line on Makefile

PYTHON_INSTALL_PERVERSION=	yes

applies bsd.python.mk

.ifdef PYTHON_PERVERSION_INSTALLATION
PKGINSTANCE=	${PYTHON_VERSION}
.endif

then check-already-installed target of bsd.pkg.mk checks
@comment INSTANCE:python2.3
and if current port has different instance string, allows further
installation phases.

This is still a rough sketch. And I think "instance" concept will
be useful for apache/perl/ruby ports, too. What do you think on
this?


Regards,
Hye-Shik