From owner-freebsd-gecko@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Aug 25 15:12:33 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: gecko@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D9AB106564A; Sat, 25 Aug 2012 15:12:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gerald@pfeifer.com) Received: from ainaz.pair.com (ainaz.pair.com [209.68.2.66]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EE338FC1E; Sat, 25 Aug 2012 15:12:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.0.129] (vie-188-118-248-247.dsl.sil.at [188.118.248.247]) by ainaz.pair.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6F5803F40F; Sat, 25 Aug 2012 11:12:23 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2012 17:12:28 +0200 (CEST) From: Gerald Pfeifer To: Mark Linimon , Eitan Adler In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <20120823232736.GE13223@lonesome.com> <5036BF97.60903@aldan.algebra.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 25 Aug 2012 15:36:54 +0000 Cc: anders@FreeBSD.org, brooks@FreeBSD.org, kde@FreeBSD.org, flz@FreeBSD.org, gecko@FreeBSD.org, ler@lerctr.org, yds@CoolRat.org, ashish@FreeBSD.org, ehaupt@FreeBSD.org, cy@FreeBSD.org, gnome@FreeBSD.org, bra@fsn.hu, "Mikhail T." , office@FreeBSD.org, gerald@FreeBSD.org, mi@aldan.algebra.com, ale@FreeBSD.org, python@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: [linimon@FreeBSD.org: ports/170946: [patch] mark certain ports broken on ARM] X-BeenThere: freebsd-gecko@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Gecko Rendering Engine issues List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2012 15:12:33 -0000 On Thu, 23 Aug 2012, Mark Linimon wrote: > FYI, I would like your approval on these (just the commit of BROKEN; I > do not expect you to try to fix them). > > gerald@FreeBSD.org lang/gcc42 For lang/gcc42 I just added arm to NOT_FOR_ARCHS. On Thu, 23 Aug 2012, Eitan Adler wrote: > NOT and ONLY are meant for ports which by definition will never work > another arch (think x86info). In this case the ports are just broken. I think in case of an old version of some software NOT_FOR_ARCHS can also be valid, especially if the problem goes deeper (and it has been addressed in a newer version/newer port that is available). Gerald