python 2 and 3 modules

Mon Jul 29 12:05:52 UTC 2013

On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 01:05:40PM +0200, Marcus von Appen wrote:
> 
> Baptiste Daroussin <bapt at freebsd.org>:
> 
> > On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 12:26:24PM +0200, Marcus von Appen wrote:
> >> David Demelier <demelier.david at gmail.com>:
> >>
> >> > 2013/7/29 Marcus von Appen <mva at freebsd.org>:
> >> >> David Demelier <demelier.david at gmail.com>:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>> 2013/7/28 Daniel Braniss <danny at cs.huji.ac.il>:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Hi,
> >> >>>> I need to be able to have both (2.7 and 3.2) modules.
> >> >>>> setting PYTHON_VERSION=3.2 in /etc/make.conf compiles properly,
> >> >>>> but make install, insists that that the 2.7 version is installed!
> >> >>>> after deinstalling, it will install the 3.2 version in the correct
> >> >>>> directory:
> >> >>>>         /usr/local/lib/python3.2/site-path
> >> >>>> but now I lost the 2.7 version.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> the same happens if I try to install the 2.7 version, it will complain
> >> >>>> that the 3,2 version is installed.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> BTW, the comments in ports/Mk/bsd.python.mk are very confusing and
> >> >>>> some are wrong:
> >> >>>> # PYTHON_VERSION        - Version of the python binary in your ${PATH},
> >> >>>> in the
> >> >>>> #                                         format "python2.0".  
> >> Set this in
> >> >>>> your
> >> >>>> makefile in case you
> >> >>>> #                                         want to build extensions with
> >> >>>> an
> >> >>>> older binary.
> >> >>>> #                                         default: depends on  
> >> the version
> >> >>>> of
> >> >>>> your python binary
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> setting it to "python3.2" produces errors in the make, while 3.2 is ok
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> is there any fix?
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> thanks,
> >> >>>>         danny
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> For the moment its pretty difficult to install python 2.7 and 3.3 at
> >> >>> the same time. However, if you plan to install python 3.3, you need to
> >> >>> set PYTHON_DEFAULT_VERSION to "python3.3" and not PYTHON_VERSION.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> No, it is not.
> >> >>
> >> >> cd /usr/ports/lang/python27 && make install clean
> >> >> cd /usr/ports/lang/python32 && make install clean
> >> >> cd /usr/ports/lang/python33 && make install clean
> >> >>
> >> >> works like a charm. If you however want to use Python modules, it might
> >> >> become
> >> >> more difficult. It was discussed some time ago on the  
> >> freebsd-python mailing
> >> >> list
> >> >> without an applicable result.
> >> >>
> >> >> If you need to have the same Python module for different  
> >> versions around, I
> >> >> would
> >> >> recommend to use virtualenv in favour of the ports infrastructure, since
> >> >>
> >> >> make -DPYTHON_DEFAULT_VERSION=xxx <python-module>    - or -
> >> >> make -DPYTHON_VERSION=xxx <python-module>     - or -
> >> >> make -DPYTHON3_DEFAULT_VERSION=xxx <python-module>
> >> >>
> >> >> might mess up previous installations for a different python version.
> >> >>
> >> >> Cheers
> >> >> Marcus
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Of course from ports it will work. I've told about binary packages.
> >> >
> >> > When you bulk build a package for python 2.7 and python 3.3 the
> >> > /usr/local/bin/python will be included in both versions. Because bulk
> >> > building python 3 modules will requires to set PYTHON_DEFAULT_VERSION
> >> > and PYTHON3_DEFAULT_VERSION to the python 3.3 interpreter.
> >> >
> >> > Then the poudriere bulk will generate python 2.7 and python 3.3
> >> > pkg-plist including for both /usr/local/bin/python and all of the
> >> > non-versioned files I've already told above.
> >> >
> >> > You may now think "who cares? it build from ports". I would say no,
> >> > binary packages will be used more and more in the future.
> >>
> >> I would not, either. This however is a problem with the package builder
> >> and ports infrastructure, which would need some install hooks to allow
> >> a check at installation time.
> >>
> > That is totally wrong, that is a python bug (python is not the only  
> > one in that
> > case).
> 
> It is not wrong. You just misunderstood me.
> 
> > The ports have only be design for source installation, problem is  
> > when you are
> > buidling packages properly each packages are being done in a cleanroom aka a
> > jail without anything installed in it that makes python 3.3 port think it is
> > becoming the default because no other python are installed at that time.
> >
> > This result in all python port defining bin/python, and thus they  
> > _do_ conflict
> > with each other. While this was/is silent with pkg_install, pkgng  
> > yell about it.
> 
> On the port level, yes, with the IF_DEFAULT conditional.
> We have lang/python, which acts as wrapper; what conditional in
> the package builder triggers either port of lang/pythonXX to install itself
> as default (except for the current default version defined in bsd.python.mk,
> which uses _PYTHON_PORTBRANCH for that)? If I closely follow the port logic,
> only lang/python27 should be picked as default, if no specific flags are
> provided. Or I'm missing something obvious in the bsd.python.mk logic.
> 
> >
> > A fun thing you can do with pkg_install (in binary mode only no  
> > compilation from
> > sources and with packages built in a cleanroom)
> > # pkg_add -r python27
> > default is now python27
> > # pkg_add -r python33
> > default is now python33
> > # pkg_delete python27
> > hey I have no default python anymore.
> 
> If that is really the case (I can only confirm that for lang/python27),
> let's get it fixed on the bsd.python.mk and lang/pythonXX level and let
> lang/python do the magic, which it is supposed to do.
> 
> > Java is solving the problem by using a javawrapper. There is 3  
> > possible way to
> > solve the situation with python, move the symlink dancing into a post install
> > script. Have a javawrapper like thing.
> 
> The post-install script is what I was talking about above. So we both  
> mean the same.
> Anyways, we have lang/python, which would be the best place in my opinion.

My appologies, I was remembering the old time and this has been fixed since.
I have been able to properly install python33 along with python27 from binaries
without any conflicts. I was speaking of an old time, this has been fixed for a
while now, sorry about the noise, and thanks for the fix.

regards,
Bapt
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-python/attachments/20130729/a91aa418/attachment.sig>