Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 09:39:35 +0000 From: Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com> To: Michael Scheidell <scheidell@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: .if ARCH / BROKEN, or 'NOT_FOR_ARCH'? Message-ID: <CADLo83-bwLcz_D3mjRAHp5eOYJ%2B7cgH9so86ZvuNRz4-Vs4=XA@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4F83FE52.5010501@FreeBSD.org> References: <4F83F893.7040500@FreeBSD.org> <20120410091619.GS66606@droso.net> <4F83FE52.5010501@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 10 Apr 2012 10:33, "Michael Scheidell" <scheidell@freebsd.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> 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}.
>
>
Yes. Bsd.port.options.mk is required beforehand of course.
Chris
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CADLo83-bwLcz_D3mjRAHp5eOYJ%2B7cgH9so86ZvuNRz4-Vs4=XA>