Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2016 15:34:58 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: gnome@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 198045] x11-toolkits/pango : Build tools hiding dependency issues Message-ID: <bug-198045-6497-zb8uSNLPMc@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-198045-6497@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-198045-6497@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D198045 John Hein <z7dr6ut7gs@snkmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |z7dr6ut7gs@snkmail.com --- Comment #6 from John Hein <z7dr6ut7gs@snkmail.com> --- While there was an example for x11-toolkits/pango, the original bug report = was decidedly not specific to that port. It was more general. I'd wager that repurposing this bug to be just a pango one is not what the OP was intendin= g. I thing I am seeing that the response to the OP from an infrastructure poin= t of view is that the weakness is known, probably won't be fixed more generally = in ports/Mk (rather should be addressed on a port case-by-case basis) and has workarounds available via poudriere, portmaster, and the like (although the tools that use a sandbox can mask problems when the full installed ports tr= ee is not used to build the packages). The original "bug", however, doesn't fit well in bugzilla as opposed to a discussion forum such as ports@ - or if there is a proposed infrastructure = fix perhaps at reviews.freebsd.org. I think this bug should have been closed as "answered" or "no general fix immediately available" and new ones opened for the individual cases rather = than transforming it to a bug for one of the individual cases. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-198045-6497-zb8uSNLPMc>