Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2002 02:20:02 -0800 (PST) From: Will Andrews <will@csociety.org> To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: ports/34565: graphics/blender port is broke Message-ID: <200202031020.g13AK2d77711@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The following reply was made to PR ports/34565; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Will Andrews <will@csociety.org> To: mkm <mkm@idsi.net> Cc: Will Andrews <will@csociety.org>, FreeBSD GNATS DB <FreeBSD-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: ports/34565: graphics/blender port is broke Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2002 05:10:09 -0500 On Sun, Feb 03, 2002 at 01:16:46AM -0600, mkm wrote: > So packages that require X libs are built according to XFree86 3.x? Hrmm, I > see how that could get hairy. No, that's not what I said. I said that what Mesa installs depends on the XFree86 version it's built against. > > No, it actually breaks it (more). If something doesn't do the > > right thing, it is by definition broken. > > Breaks it less, now it actually runs. (given on a XFree86-4 box). I agree > that its still broke, hence why I'm working on the Mesa3 changes. If it breaks other ports in more than zero quite possible cases, it is still broken from a packaging perspective. > Always better safe than sorry, scenario: some clown out there (there are > many) writes code w/ a configure script to evaluate [ -e > /blah/blah/libGL.so.14 ] or [ -h /blah/blah/libGL.so.14 ] to check for Mesa3, > then someone ports it. kaboom. I agree that it's better safe than sorry, but I still think your patch is wrong for other reasons. :) > > By the way, I already had this long discussion with the author of > > blender and the original blender port maintainer awhile back. > > The short and long of it is that Mesa in ports needs to be fixed. > > Then blender should be marked as a broke port until it isnt broke according > to your definition of broke. The port would not be broken by my definition if the maintainer adds a pkg-message file to notify the user that due to brokenness in the Mesa/XFree86 stuff, they will have to install the symlink manually, if required. This will make them aware of the issue and to make sure they take care of it in the future should they not require the symlink any more. It's not a perfect solution, which is why... > I mearly offered it as a temporary fix. I don't do things half assed. Just > give me a little time to work on it and all will be well. 8) ...you're working on that now. 8^) -- wca To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200202031020.g13AK2d77711>