[csw-maintainers] python library directory

[Romeo Theriault]

Hi Ben,  So I added:

PACKAGING_PLATFORMS = solaris10-sparc solaris10-i386

to my .garrc and building now works. Thanks.

I am now seeing this when building pyzmq:

CSWpy-pyzmq:
 * Python compiled files are supposed to be compiled usingthe cswpycompile
   class action script. For more information, see http://wiki.opencsw.org
   /cswclassutils-package
If any of the reported errors were false positives, you can override them
pasting the lines below to the GAR recipe.
CHECKPKG_OVERRIDES_CSWpy-pyzmq +=
discouraged-path-in-pkgmap|/opt/csw/lib/python2.6/site-packages/zmq/ssh/tunnel.pyc
CHECKPKG_OVERRIDES_CSWpy-pyzmq +=
discouraged-path-in-pkgmap|/opt/csw/lib/python2.6/site-packages/zmq/tests/__init__.pyc
CHECKPKG_OVERRIDES_CSWpy-pyzmq +=
discouraged-path-in-pkgmap|/opt/csw/lib/python2.6/site-packages/zmq/tests/test_context.pyc


Can I assume the "discouraged path" warning is from the old mgar
settings wanting stuff under /opt/csw/lib/python and not python2.6? If
so, should I just ignore this for now and manually logon to
experimental10x to continue with the build of the package on x86?
(This package is platform dependent.)

Also, not sure what the "Python compiled files are supposed to be
compiled usingthe cswpycompile class action script" warning is about
since it looks to me like the python files got compiled....

Any pointers are appreciated. Thanks!

Romeo

On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 12:31 PM, Romeo Theriault
<romeotheriault at opencsw.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 8:56 AM, Ben Walton <bwalton at opencsw.org> wrote:
>> As far as I'm concerned, yes.  We could likely build for 9 still but
>> I've decided to not bother.  We're getting to the point where library
>> versions have diverged enough that I just don't think 9 is worth the
>> effort...of course people still use 8.  (Deploying new stacks on
>> legacy systems...?)
>
> I won't put up a stink for sol9 support but, yes, I still have some
> solaris 9 boxes that I need to maintain and I like to try to keep them
> the same as possible as the 10 boxes. But I understand the reasons.
>
> Thanks,
> Romeo