Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2022 15:19:45 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 265651] [NEW PORT] archivers/zpaqfranz: versioned/snapshot archive Message-ID: <bug-265651-7788-dE80WDpd6Q@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-265651-7788@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-265651-7788@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=3D265651 --- Comment #15 from Felix Palmen <zirias@freebsd.org> --- Actually, a policy about ARCH restrictions is: Only restrict them if the software is *known* to be broken on some arch. But then, this new port would (attempt to) build on any arch. You added ONLY_FOR_ARCHS to the *upstream* Makefile, where nothing would ev= er care about it. It's a variable of FreeBSD's port building framework, so only does anything in a port Makefile. Still I wonder why you insist on restricting anything? I gave you a simple example above how you could have your SSE2-dependent stuff on only amd64 and still have it build on any other arch. And if you want to take one step further, you can still add a port option enabling SSE2 on i386 as well, it = just can't be on by default because official packages must run fine on any CPU of the respective ARCH. --=20 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-265651-7788-dE80WDpd6Q>