From owner-svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Wed Oct 14 06:59:27 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-ports-head@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 997ED42F1AD; Wed, 14 Oct 2020 06:59:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from danfe@freebsd.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [96.47.72.132]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "freefall.freebsd.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4CB3Dv3VSjz4mhV; Wed, 14 Oct 2020 06:59:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from danfe@freebsd.org) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=freebsd.org; s=dkim; t=1602658767; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=416NBCZO1PcPBD6AsSOi0TqI3tNo4CkRtSrKnPWDFK0=; b=J3vFfHc41IZSxIUP+nLQdJXZxYaTVs6oiC/bXr+r4N10iKfWHNLOxWjp+ZePTO6TXeTyam F5T2tdLJ0OnA0Nhg+84NFIQTXfKPl4C70tg8dZuG4/rgB01sGLnE8m33nDi2PXTL6B+m3w 6RkBgh9pfhXuW8S1JJIDngvr4NV0XHjHMmRasUG5pesaFv9uxYuSJ6D84OcssWTXnKEmZ+ pPrDODrWR9AITufNYrDv8CGlXjYybp+QR6uoLfzt1NPzQU68gTsW3L/2zLM71FX1IwL/y+ id/tPeDAUyU8WUvAEqvU1q61pbgTL1nloxMxpALu0bohBikyZHLcA+BUJYr0HQ== Received: by freefall.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 1033) id 612C2135D; Wed, 14 Oct 2020 06:59:27 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2020 06:59:27 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev To: Baptiste Daroussin Cc: ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r552302 - head/net/nifmon/files Message-ID: <20201014065927.GA20521@FreeBSD.org> References: <202010140641.09E6fPUD010851@repo.freebsd.org> <20201014064643.rg2rd7usrsixpjdi@ivaldir.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20201014064643.rg2rd7usrsixpjdi@ivaldir.net> ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=freebsd.org; s=dkim; t=1602658767; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=416NBCZO1PcPBD6AsSOi0TqI3tNo4CkRtSrKnPWDFK0=; b=GlI9GDnveH7x7BznhyP9tkSwyV1OANoCn0+T3sl/dVdrbWzkbP0YnHJ6jv8vvoMzwQXum9 rrvpCj0UHCVXHAIo1PJYGHY2P1PYWMetAW0YRtr+Hw7MkKNvod10pEUjJMTxK8SHRJXPMX pXlfTHadAo1FgGQcGPDu9xgcD6ld9NoDat+6LwHpIsxT/rujAB/IvZ/Gb0D3Fw0Z9oW4Wz bQHrDViNqSdHdlByQvmXq1ANwg24rR3maqnxUhEi/N6knCUl4ueWmEtcV06k9w60hueuMg zHi5kKkV7cW606uWCaK+GlWWyHI22fVyCHAjdn82xoR6Si/PzOIcUVe2QE+9Lw== ARC-Seal: i=1; s=dkim; d=freebsd.org; t=1602658767; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=kmRcIzTzVWznqX+JcHuHUF1SmYdBvNOgAA3aXbQHCBdGY/Pv5vca5NysSk5GJcar6COle8 Ig1zLYQ3pY3gNmA4FD7xrHy5v8sXVZRs0FwLWk7pvKN+066nBdhjM/VCsyAEeWwkIqNsMw KP0zfu0J7MW+po+x/kHlaHXiDGSvSVnY7mU/HYg6ZklTSrt7lbzrwZLJCc5bontdOJ4hnM C22g2X1zaU9bBxbbdGbG7EmO4Yysme8WxMEaj8PRMhEn0KUBya+RTgFuvZ5A4YTD5sD6u8 gZcYkk7iZ3Klilcvy+/1n7mbKM0BfzzMIdCzw95weTGfCgq9Pdm6A5qlcOZKdg== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx1.freebsd.org; none X-BeenThere: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.33 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the ports tree for head List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2020 06:59:27 -0000 On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 08:46:43AM +0200, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 06:41:25AM +0000, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: > > New Revision: 552302 > > URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/552302 > > > > Log: > > Force -fcommon to unbreak the build against Clang 11 and GCC 10. > > > > PR: 250219 > > I don't understand why you have to patch the Makefile here, Because the port already patches the Makefile (for another reason) and I didn't want to spread the changes against port's Makefile and patch-Makefile. > should be passed by the port CFLAGS Usually that's what I do, yes (if fixing the code properly would be unfeasible). > In any case the current approach seems wrong to me. Both are technically fine in this particular case. I'd agree with you that creating new multi-line patch file instead of adding one CFLAGS+= line in the port's Makefile looks bad, but that didn't happen here. ./danfe