From owner-freebsd-ports Tue Mar 31 15:42:20 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA28011 for freebsd-ports-outgoing; Tue, 31 Mar 1998 15:42:20 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from time.cdrom.com (root@time.cdrom.com [204.216.27.226]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA28006 for ; Tue, 31 Mar 1998 15:42:18 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jkh@time.cdrom.com) Received: from time.cdrom.com (jkh@localhost.cdrom.com [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA06451; Tue, 31 Mar 1998 15:41:31 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jkh@time.cdrom.com) To: shimon@simon-shapiro.org cc: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Yest one more: devel/crosssco In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 31 Mar 1998 15:39:39 PST." Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 15:41:31 -0800 Message-ID: <6447.891387691@time.cdrom.com> From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > My apologies. I thought I said I did. The re-install did not happen just > a moment before building the ports, but a while ago. 9-Dec-1997 to be > exact. The objection I have is to doing this re-install on a regular basis. > Too expensive, too slow, too disruptice, and too dangerous. But for the case of -current, which is a moving target, also too necessary. Again, stay up to date or get out of the business of testing -current. It's very very simple. :-) > BTW, where did you get the idea sendero is a 2.2-3.0 upgrade? Probably about the time that I suggested a 3.0 install and you pushed back, leading me to believe that you didn't want to reinstall the box and hadn't at any recent point. Since you say your last install is from December 9th, that's also reasonably true even if not 2.2.x. :-) > I am not attacking the ports concept, nor mechanism. Actually, I am not > attacking anyone or anything. I just find, in certain directories, certain > packages that barf. And again, simply saying "they barf" is not what's needed here - simply identifying build failures in a 1300 port collection now entails too much work being displaced onto someone else's shoulders to constitute any reasonable attempt at load-sharing. What we need these days are much more precise "it failed _because_ ..." reports if it's your goal to actually accomplish anything through such testing. Jordan To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message