On 10 April 2012 14:56, Pietro Cerutti <g...@freebsd.org> wrote: > On 2012-Apr-10, 09:04, Jerry wrote: >> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 07:40:09 -0500 >> Mark Linimon articulated: >> >> > Finally, I agree that FreeBSD can't "guarantee" any given ports will >> > work, but I think we owe the users the effort to make sure if a port >> > is included, it's at least not completely useless. >> >> To "guarantee" that the port will work is certainly beyond the scope >> of the ports system; however, to guarantee that it is fetch-able >> and build-able is an implied action by the simple fact that it is >> included in the ports structure. If, after a reasonable amount of time, >> a solution for a port's inability to properly build or if the port is >> just plain not able to be fetched, then it should be removed from the >> port system. There is no upside to keeping ports that will not build, >> or cannot be fetched. > > For the record, the port in question was fetchable / buildable / > runnable. For some reason, some python class sometimes doesn't get > byte-compiled, resulting in packaging (PLIST) errors. >
BUILD_ENV= PYTHONDONTWRITEBYTECODE=yes usually helps. Chris _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
