About zope and plone

[Martin Wilke]

On Fri Oct 28 16:47:41 2011, Ruslan Mahmatkhanov wrote:
> Martin Wilke wrote on 29.10.2011 04:37:
>> On Wed Oct 19 10:57:41 2011, wen heping wrote:
>>> Yes, I agree with this PR that we should add -N to easy_install's
>>> deinstall argument.
>>>
>>> And shall we ask for a exp-run to test it ?
>>>
>>> wen
>>>
>>> 2011/10/19 Ruslan Mahmatkhanov<cvs-src at yandex.ru>:
>>>> Good day, gentlemen.
>>>>
>>>> Please tell what do you think about message bellow and this pr:
>>>> http://bugs.freebsd.org/159962
>>>>
>>>> Message bellow is somewhat complements this pr. Please also note that
>>>> Wen
>>>> agree with this pr, but he is busy for this right now. Also note that
>>>> this
>>>> pr is a stopper wrt importing of new zope and plone.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks in advance.
>>>>
>>>> -------- Исходное сообщение --------
>>>> Тема: Re: About zope and plone
>>>> Дата: Sun, 16 Oct 2011 23:03:41 +0400
>>>> От: Ruslan Mahmatkhanov<cvs-src at yandex.ru>
>>>> Кому: wen heping<wenheping at gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>> wen heping wrote on 14.10.2011 13:15:
>>>>
>>>>> Today I tested devel/py-zope.minmax in Tinderbox, it has the same 
>>>>> plist
>>>>> error.
>>>>> Now I need such a port exist in current FreeBSD portstree to be a 
>>>>> demo
>>>>> to python at .
>>>>>
>>>>> If python@ does not disagree I would ask portmgr@ for an exprun to 
>>>>> test
>>>>> it.
>>>>> Then I would commit it.
>>>>
>>>> Hi Wen,
>>>>
>>>> i'm finally get it.
>>>> While seeking an example for you i took some broken/outdated ports,
>>>> that i
>>>> just can't left in this state :), so i apologize for delay.
>>>>
>>>> You was right, it's a kind of upstream problem, but bsd.python.mk 
>>>> still
>>>> contains a problem too, because this error still exists on 
>>>> deinstall of
>>>> such silly ports (that may potentially exist in future).
>>>>
>>>> Here is how to reproduce:
>>>> Pick any port, that
>>>> a) using setuptools for installing
>>>> b) has non-empty install_requires[] list in it's setup.py
>>>> c) does not define BUILD or RUN DEPENDS for deps, that are listed
>>>> in it's setup.py
>>>>
>>>> Ok, i wasn't able to find such port in the tree. But you can take, 
>>>> say,
>>>> devel/py-daemon, remove BUILD/RUN_DEPENDS in it's Makefile and try to
>>>> build it in tinderbox - it will builds and installs fine, but 
>>>> you'll get
>>>> extra files installed on deinstall.
>>>>
>>>> The only port, that looked promising, was devel/py-Jinja. It defines
>>>> this lines:
>>>>
>>>> PYEASYINSTALL_INSTALLARGS= -N 
>>>> ${PYTHON_SITELIBDIR}/${PYEASYINSTALL_EGG}
>>>> PYEASYINSTALL_UNINSTALLARGS= -q -m -N
>>>> ${PYTHON_SITELIBDIR}/${PYEASYINSTALL_EGG}
>>>>
>>>> Note adding the -N key on deinstall. But right now they are not 
>>>> needed,
>>>> because this port packages successfully without them (it has empty
>>>> install_requires[]).
>>>>
>>>> The problem with Products.MailHost, for example, is that if i add zope
>>>> as dependency of this port, we well have cyclic deps and broken build.
>>>> Resolving this issue with upstream will take much time (i know this
>>>> because i already have 3 patches that hanging in zope/plone 
>>>> bugtrackers
>>>> more than month).
>>>>
>>>> I can avoid this a different way, by defining
>>>> PYEASYINSTALL_UNINSTALLARGS, but i believe that more correct and more
>>>> easy is to define this -N in bsd.python.mk, because it's just two 
>>>> bytes
>>>> in one file - and this is all, problem solved. Otherwise, i will be
>>>> forced to patch many ports with this UNINSTALLARGS line, effectively
>>>> littering the tree and making it hard to maintain. We already have 
>>>> it in
>>>> PYEASYINSTALL_INSTALLARGS for some reason anyway, so why to not
>>>> define it in
>>>> UNINSTALLARGS too for symmetry?
>>>>
>>>> I hope this arguments are sufficient to convince portmgr@ and make 
>>>> this
>>>> change.
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Ruslan
>>>>
>>>> Tinderboxing kills... the drives.
>>>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Just a question, all these is still based on python 2.4 right? Because
>> of security reason we should remove python 2.4 after 9.0 release. I'm
>> back to the game now and will force that removal.
>> Please let me know whats about that.
>>
>> - Martin
>>
>
> Hi, Martin.
>
> No, of course. The whole point is to import zope/plone versions that 
> work with 2.6/2.7, and to drop obsoleted 2.4-only versions along with 
> python 2.4 an 2.5.
>

Cool happy to hear that :-)

-- 
+-----------------oOO--(_)--OOo-------------------------+
With best Regards,
        Martin Wilke (miwi_(at)_FreeBSD.org)
 
Mess with the Best, Die like the Rest