Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 05:33:06 -0400 From: Michael Scheidell <scheidell@FreeBSD.org> To: <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: .if ARCH / BROKEN, or 'NOT_FOR_ARCH'? Message-ID: <4F83FE52.5010501@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20120410091619.GS66606@droso.net> References: <4F83F893.7040500@FreeBSD.org> <20120410091619.GS66606@droso.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 4/10/12 5:16 AM, Erwin Lansing wrote:
> maintainer that something is wrong.
>
> There are quite a few large grey areas between those, but that's the
> general outline.
so, if the maintainer knows something, and knows it won't ever get
fixed, then 'NOT_FOR_ARCHS' is best,
if its an unknown/ maybe osversion, something the maintainer didn't know
about, portmgr might mark it broken wrapped in a .if ${ARCH}.
--
Michael Scheidell, CTO
>*| * SECNAP Network Security Corporation
d: +1.561.948.2259
w: http://people.freebsd.org/~scheidell
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4F83FE52.5010501>