ports/138835: Python compile failure

David Southwell david at vizion2000.net
Tue Sep 15 10:28:21 UTC 2009


> David sorry but stop your agressive blaming here,
> first you come not without any more infos only it failed
> secound we are all humons and do sometimes mistakes so,
> now show me your 'make showconfig" and "uname -a"
> 
> Thx!
> 
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 11:05:27AM +0100, David Southwell wrote:
> > As reported by Ralph Kenyon <kenyon at kenyonralph.com>
> >
> > >On 2009-09-15T10:08:52+0100, David Southwell <david at vizion2000.net> 
wrote:
> > > > I want to understand why bug reports get closed prematurely and
> > > > without
> >
> > any
> >
> > > > discussion with the original person submitting the report.
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > > Yrs frustrated
> > > > David Southwell
> > > >ps the PR link is:
> > >>
> > >> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=138835
> > >>
> > > >(ports/138835: Python compile failure)
> > >
> > >I am wondering the same thing. extra-patch-setup.py is wrong. miwi's
> > >"can't confirm" post in ports/138835 doesn't even show the patch being
> > >applied.
> > >
> > >Here is the rejects file:
> > >
> > >***************
> > >*** 1273,1279 ****
> >
> >                   )
> >               libraries = []
> >
> > -         elif platform in ('freebsd4', 'freebsd5', 'freebsd6',
> > 'freebsd7', 'freebsd8'):
> >               # FreeBSD's P1003.1b semaphore support is very experimental
> >               # and has many known problems. (as of June 2008)
> >               macros = dict(                  # FreeBSD
> > --- 1277,1283 ----
> >                   )
> >               libraries = []
> >
> > +         elif platform in ('freebsd4', 'freebsd5', 'freebsd6',
> > 'freebsd7', 'freebsd8', 'freebsd9'):
> >               # FreeBSD's P1003.1b semaphore support is very experimental
> >               # and has many known problems. (as of June 2008)
> >               macros = dict(                  # FreeBSD
> >
> > >Kenyon Ralph
> > >
> >  >End of signed message
> >
> > This bug now has a new PR
> > Link is:
> > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=138837
> David sorry but stop your agressive blaming here,
> first you come not without any more infos only it failed
> secound we are all humons and do sometimes mistakes so,
> now show me your 'make showconfig" and "uname -a"
> 
> Thx!

1. There has been no blaming only politelly asking question which in the 
circumstances seem appropriate.
2. output of uname -a is included in my reports both ion the PRs and the 
reports to freebsd-ports and freebsd-python.
3. You will see I have already asked James Chang in my posting to ports to 
post the output of his uname -a.
4.dns1# make showconfig
===> The following configuration options are available for python26-2.6.2_3:
     THREADS=on "Enable thread support"
     HUGE_STACK_SIZE=off "Use a larger thread stack"
     SEM=on "Use POSIX semaphores (experimental)"
     PTH=off "Use GNU Pth for threading/multiprocessing"
     UCS4=on "Use UCS4 for unicode support"
     PYMALLOC=on "Use python's internal malloc"
     IPV6=off "Enable IPv6 support"
     FPECTL=on "Enable floating point exception handling"
===> Use 'make config' to modify these settings


I do not think this is much help as python26-2.6.2_3 will not build
5. Noone is blaming you - and noone is being aggressive- only asking why the 
standard procedure for handling all PR's does not expect maintainers to go 
back to the original reporting individual for comments before closing so the 
maintainer has the benefit of any additional information that might help to 
resolve the problem. When a port freeze is imminent you can however understand 
that those who are affected by a failure can feel frustrated when a PR is 
closed prematurely.

David Southwell


More information about the freebsd-python mailing list