Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2012 12:55:21 -0400 From: Eitan Adler <lists@eitanadler.com> To: "Mikhail T." <mi+thun@aldan.algebra.com> Cc: bra@fsn.hu, kde@freebsd.org, flz@freebsd.org, gecko@freebsd.org, cy@freebsd.org, ashish@freebsd.org, ale@freebsd.org, yds@coolrat.org, ler@lerctr.org, gnome@freebsd.org, Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com>, office@freebsd.org, gerald@freebsd.org, mi@aldan.algebra.com, ehaupt@freebsd.org, python@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [linimon@FreeBSD.org: ports/170946: [patch] mark certain ports broken on ARM] Message-ID: <CAF6rxgm0CociCn2Csk3tNwX-qWXZss572sGE1Skbj8iTbuJp_w@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <5038EECD.6050203@aldan.algebra.com> References: <20120823232736.GE13223@lonesome.com> <5036BF97.60903@aldan.algebra.com> <CAF6rxgntLd%2BFAM_KGjkKzZOmhvdaOEXJg4YL1b7yYrCYgpx=0w@mail.gmail.com> <5038EECD.6050203@aldan.algebra.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 25 August 2012 11:27, Mikhail T. <mi+thun@aldan.algebra.com> wrote: > On 23.08.2012 21:47, Eitan Adler wrote: > > NOT and ONLY are meant for ports which by definition will never work > another arch (think x86info). In this case the ports are just broken. > > That's a fine distinction, that makes little sense to me -- the total number > of ports, which can not ever work on some architecture is, probably, a > couple dozen... It is also not mentioned in the Handbook at all: The reason for the distinction is the existence of the -DTRYBROKEN flag. In theory, an exp run is done with -DTRYBROKEN every so often. *FOR_ARCH is not tested when this happens. -- Eitan Adler
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAF6rxgm0CociCn2Csk3tNwX-qWXZss572sGE1Skbj8iTbuJp_w>