Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2015 10:41:23 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 204512] [NEW PORT] devel/bazel: Correct, reproducible, and fast builds for everyone Message-ID: <bug-204512-13-8fQ4t6jm0M@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-204512-13@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-204512-13@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=204512 --- Comment #7 from Peter Jeremy <peterj@FreeBSD.org> --- I've done some more poking around and compared the proposed port with bazel-0.1.1-installer-linux-x86_64.sh. The latter installs a smaller bazel but separately installs a large collection of files in /usr/local/lib/bazel/base_workspace/ and appends that path to --package_path. I suspect this is the correct approach. I have verified that adding ${WRKSRC} to --package_path make bazel work. Having looker closer at the Makefile, I notice a couple of issues that should be looked into: - There's a test suite in bazel and it would be useful if that was hooked into "make test" - ${REINPLACE_CMD} includes the '-i' option. Also '-i' takes an option so the Makefile winds up using '-e' as a suffix for backup files. - do-build deletes files in ${HOME}. This is highly undesirable - the Makefile should override ${HOME} so that the port does not alter any files outside ${WRKDIR} - There are many occurrences of /bin/bash and md5sum that are not corrected. This definitely causes test failures but it's not clear whether it would impact normal bazel operation. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-204512-13-8fQ4t6jm0M>