On 2016-10-21 01:42 , Lawrence Velázquez wrote:
On Oct 20, 2016, at 3:40 AM, René J.V. Bertin <[email protected]> wrote:
On Wednesday October 19 2016 21:44:04 Ryan Schmidt wrote:
No, that situation should not be common, nor indeed present at all.
I'm not sure I agree. PortGroups are intended to take care of setting
up things for the ports that use them (like declaring a dependency in
such a way ports work with the main as well as the -devel port), and
even an official one like the github PG adds dependency info. Ditto
for the Python PG: you cannot (to my knowledge) include it just to
obtain the variables that provide the python paths without also
redefining the configure mechanism.
You could claim that it should be uncommon that ports want only part
of the info a PG provides, but even that might not be relevant as
I think there are quite a few ports providing Python extensions but
that don't use Python's own configure/build/install mechanism (PyQt
and PyKDE come to mind).
This is arguably a defect of python-1.0 that should be fixed in the
portgroup.
No, it's just out of scope. The python portgroup is for installing with
setup.py.
There is of course no reason why a different portgroup with a different
purpose couldn't be created, and share code with this one behind the scenes.
- Josh
_______________________________________________
macports-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
