Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 10:40:52 +0000 From: Matthew Seaman <m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk> To: Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com> Subject: Re: NOT_FOR_ARCHS considered harmful [was: with the cvs history? trying to help INDEX builds.] Message-ID: <4F1BE7B4.6090702@infracaninophile.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <20120121204614.GH4729@lonesome.com> References: <4F177264.3090708@freebsd.org> <4F17DB1C.6080503@infracaninophile.co.uk> <CADLo83-WtVmyGHM=O4FbTNbDy9h=A1t111bP6eYc%2BTL8-RGmuA@mail.gmail.com> <4F193FD5.8070208@infracaninophile.co.uk> <20120121204614.GH4729@lonesome.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--------------enigC76853508DF2E094B1C2127F
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On 21/01/2012 20:46, Mark Linimon wrote:
> tl;dr: I want to switch the default assumption we're making.
>=20
> IMHO when new ports come into the tree, we should make our default
> assumption that we will try to build them on amd64 and i386. For cases=
> that this does not hold, we consider this Bad and committer-must-fix.
> For the tier-2s, we shift the default assumption to "only set it to
> buildable once it has been shown to be so". So, the burden of proof
> shifts the other way: to a user of a tier-2 to claim "I tried this and
> it works", rather than portmgr saying "we tried this and it doesn't wor=
k".
Doesn't your proposed change in semantics of the 'FOR_ARCHS' stuff mean
that over time, as other architectures become more popular, most ports
will have to have an explicit 'ONLY_FOR_ARCHS' setting? If the default
effectively becomes 'ONLY_FOR_ARCHS=3D i386 amd64' then as ports are show=
n
to work on different platforms they will need an ONLY_FOR_ARCHS line in
their Makefiles listing where they are known to work? Or else the ports
becomes effectively i386 / amd64 only?
> (Of course, for things like p5-* it doesn't really matter; if perl
> builds, to a first approximation they'll build as well. I'm talking
> about the things like biology/, deskutils/, games/, math/, science,
> x11*/, and so forth.)
>=20
> What do people think?
There are a lot of ports where the distinction between CPU architectures
is pretty much irrelevant. I can't see portmaster(8) (for example)
failing to work anywhere the base system works.
I was thinking about this a while back. Test the contents of packages
to see if they install any object code -- ports/129210 -- and mark the
ones that don't as arch-independent in some way (CATEGORIES+=3D arch-inde=
p
perhaps?)
Cheers,
Matthew
--=20
Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard
Flat 3
PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate
JID: matthew@infracaninophile.co.uk Kent, CT11 9PW
--------------enigC76853508DF2E094B1C2127F
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.16 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAk8b574ACgkQ8Mjk52CukIxXmQCfYjwQIA677xnDR8WrPO76BnO7
dHQAn09XwVl5biS13KX9+Vs90Xyu6ttx
=y+jm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--------------enigC76853508DF2E094B1C2127F--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4F1BE7B4.6090702>