About zope and plone

[Martin Wilke]

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 While seeking an example for you i took some broken/outdated ports, that i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

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