svn commit: r364518 - in head: accessibility/py-papi audio/py-al devel/py-astroid devel/py-dynrules devel/py-game devel/py-logilab-common devel/py-ocempgui devel/py-ply devel/py-sdl2 devel/pychecke...

[Kubilay Kocak]

On 11/08/2014 4:55 PM, Marcus von Appen wrote:
> On, Mon Aug 11, 2014, Kubilay Kocak wrote:
> 
>> On 11/08/2014 2:40 AM, Adam Weinberger wrote:
>>> On 10 Aug, 2014, at 11:56, Marcus von Appen <mva at FreeBSD.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On, Sun Aug 10, 2014, Max Brazhnikov wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 10 Aug 2014 09:55:16 +0000 Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 08:55:08AM +0000, Marcus von Appen wrote:
>>>>>>> New Revision: 364518
>>>>>>> URL: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/364518
>>>>>>> QAT: https://qat.redports.org/buildarchive/r364518/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -USES=		pkgconfig
>>>>>>> +USES=		pkgconfig python:2
>>>>>>> USE_GNOME=	atk
>>>>>>> -USE_PYTHON=	2
>>>>>>> -USE_PYDISTUTILS=yes
>>>>>>> -PYDISTUTILS_AUTOPLIST=	yes
>>>>>>> +PYTHON_FEATURES=autoplist distutils
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yuck, this PYTHON_FEATURES knob is ugly.  Why not follow Perl's example
>>>>>> instead (USES=perl and USE_PERL)?  It both makes more sense and shorter.
>>>>>
>>>>> ugly or not, it's a matter of taste. But PYTHON_FEATURES usage is inconsistent
>>>>> with COMPILER_FEATURES (read only var). Could we rename it while it's not too late?
>>>>
>>>> Using USE_PYTHON is a problem, since this would be inconsistent with many
>>>> other parts of the infrastructure. Aside from that, it would need a lot of
>>>> glue code for the transition phase.
>>>>
>>>> Regardless of that, if portmgr's common suggestion is that XXX_FEATURES is
>>>> about testing for a certain feature (read-only), I'm fine with it and open for
>>>> suggestions, which describe that infrastructure bit X wants to enable a
>>>> certain infrastructure feature.
>>>>
>>>> PYTHON_FEATURES is in my opinion the best by far. If the consensus is to use
>>>> USE_PYTHON, similar to USE_PERL5, this will require us to migrate all python
>>>> ports from USE_PYTHON to USES=python first and will take some time.
>>>
>>> Can it just treat USE_PTYHON as PYTHON_FEATURES if USES=python is defined?
>>
>> Marcus, how feasible is this (minus the typo) to make the transition
>> without a mass conversion first-phase?
> 
> It won't work with the proposed way. It'd be possible to create a check based
> what USE_PYTHON contains, thought, but I doubt that check to be completely
> bullet-proof, so a conversion to USES=python should be done as fast as
> possible.

Hmm :| *ponders*

>> I like the idea of USE_FOO=bar[:baz]<,qux> being the canonical
>> convention for easy transfer of existing knowledge for maintainers (perl
>> -> python -> *)
> 
> I brought this to portmgr's attention, so we do not run into this again, when
> other parts are converted to USES. As soon as portmgr made a clear statement,
> we can start with whatever should be used.

Awesome :)

Should we quieten the deprecation warnings until we have clarity for
moving forward?

koobs