From nobody Sun Dec 12 20:47:57 2021 X-Original-To: freebsd-ports@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E39618E94AD for ; Sun, 12 Dec 2021 20:48:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rebecca@bsdio.com) Received: from out01.mta.xmission.com (out01.mta.xmission.com [166.70.13.231]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4JBxYP25H8z4dLj; Sun, 12 Dec 2021 20:48:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rebecca@bsdio.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=simple/simple; d=bsdio.com; s=xmission; h=Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:Cc: References:To:From:MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=Cj4sGzAlXGoEw98tHZMU8cA9Ga23BdP12RHnBSFwOz8=; b=OKykSs5SpvNmDWnX3FGMYhKNeH adee/NPBemiitfZUUPUIWnSV6zl4wwzCSm+0S61l96xI1dI9Y50QJU8YwjuUiN4aIj9EkXn+y3YwD ierzTo48x8/Ddpfe7vwi/1o+vIKAFoxG8SEFeab1RnbdzHS84H8tWFbYshYMPgIoTcvA=; Received: from in02.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.52]:45836) by out01.mta.xmission.com with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.93) (envelope-from ) id 1mwVlJ-006Aue-U0; Sun, 12 Dec 2021 13:48:01 -0700 Received: from mta5.zcs.xmission.com ([166.70.13.69]:52646) by in02.mta.xmission.com with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.93) (envelope-from ) id 1mwVlJ-009BfK-4l; Sun, 12 Dec 2021 13:48:01 -0700 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mta5.zcs.xmission.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6EFE128071B; Sun, 12 Dec 2021 13:48:00 -0700 (MST) X-Amavis-Modified: Mail body modified (using disclaimer) - mta5.zcs.xmission.com Received: from mta5.zcs.xmission.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mta5.zcs.xmission.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id 6pQhVmUG_pUn; Sun, 12 Dec 2021 13:48:00 -0700 (MST) Received: from [10.0.10.162] (c-98-202-153-46.hsd1.ut.comcast.net [98.202.153.46]) by mta5.zcs.xmission.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D003312803FB; Sun, 12 Dec 2021 13:47:58 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2021 13:47:57 -0700 List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-ports List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.3.2 Content-Language: en-US From: Rebecca Cran To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org References: Cc: marcus@FreeBSD.org In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-XM-SPF: eid=1mwVlJ-009BfK-4l;;;mid=;;;hst=in02.mta.xmission.com;;;ip=166.70.13.69;;;frm=rebecca@bsdio.com;;;spf=neutral X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 166.70.13.69 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: rebecca@bsdio.com X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on sa04.xmission.com X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.3 required=8.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_50, DCC_CHECK_NEGATIVE,NICE_REPLY_A,TR_Symld_Words,T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG, XM_B_Unicode autolearn=disabled version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Report: * -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP * 0.8 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 40 to 60% * [score: 0.5162] * 1.5 TR_Symld_Words too many words that have symbols inside * 0.0 XM_B_Unicode BODY: Testing for specific types of unicode * 0.0 T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG BODY: No description available. * -0.0 DCC_CHECK_NEGATIVE Not listed in DCC * [sa04 1397; IP=ok Body=1 Fuz1=1] [Fuz2=1] * -0.0 NICE_REPLY_A Looks like a legit reply (A) X-Spam-DCC: XMission; sa04 1397; IP=ok Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1 X-Spam-Combo: *;freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org X-Spam-Relay-Country: X-Spam-Timing: total 293 ms - load_scoreonly_sql: 0.04 (0.0%), signal_user_changed: 10 (3.4%), b_tie_ro: 9 (3.0%), parse: 0.95 (0.3%), extract_message_metadata: 3.6 (1.2%), get_uri_detail_list: 0.46 (0.2%), tests_pri_-1000: 2.5 (0.8%), tests_pri_-950: 1.28 (0.4%), tests_pri_-900: 1.01 (0.3%), tests_pri_-90: 68 (23.3%), check_bayes: 67 (22.8%), b_tokenize: 4.9 (1.7%), b_tok_get_all: 4.7 (1.6%), b_comp_prob: 1.82 (0.6%), b_tok_touch_all: 52 (17.7%), b_finish: 0.99 (0.3%), tests_pri_0: 194 (66.3%), check_dkim_signature: 0.56 (0.2%), check_dkim_adsp: 59 (20.1%), poll_dns_idle: 53 (17.9%), tests_pri_10: 2.1 (0.7%), tests_pri_500: 7 (2.3%), rewrite_mail: 0.00 (0.0%) Subject: Re: USES_GCC: is "yes:build+" valid? X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Sat, 08 Feb 2020 21:53:50 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on in02.mta.xmission.com) X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4JBxYP25H8z4dLj X-Spamd-Bar: / Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none ("invalid DKIM record") header.d=bsdio.com header.s=xmission header.b=OKykSs5S; dmarc=none; spf=neutral (mx1.freebsd.org: 166.70.13.231 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of rebecca@bsdio.com) smtp.mailfrom=rebecca@bsdio.com X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-0.54 / 15.00]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_FIVE(0.00)[6]; RECEIVED_SPAMHAUS_PBL(0.00)[98.202.153.46:received]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; R_SPF_NEUTRAL(0.00)[?all]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; TO_DN_NONE(0.00)[]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[bsdio.com]; RWL_MAILSPIKE_GOOD(0.00)[166.70.13.231:from]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-0.98)[-0.979]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[bsdio.com:~]; RCPT_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; NEURAL_SPAM_LONG(0.74)[0.743]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-1.00)[-1.000]; R_DKIM_PERMFAIL(0.00)[bsdio.com:s=xmission]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; SUBJECT_ENDS_QUESTION(1.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:6315, ipnet:166.70.0.0/16, country:US]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW(-0.20)[166.70.13.231:from,166.70.13.52:received] X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: N cc marcus@ It looks like this might be a bug in portlint. -- Rebecca Cran On 12/12/21 13:27, Rebecca Cran wrote: > I'm working on updating sysutils/uefi-edk2-bhyve and ran portlint. > > It's complaining about the "USE_GCC:yes:build" line, saying: > > > WARN: Makefile: [22]: Setting a specific version for USE_GCC should > only be done as a last resort.  Unless you have confirmed this port > does not build with later versions of GCC, please use USE_GCC=yes:build+. > > I didn't see any documentation for "yes:build+" online, so I was > wondering if that's really valid? > >