Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2015 16:03:46 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 196185] emulators/hyperv-is: Update Hyper-V ports for FreeBSD 10.1 Message-ID: <bug-196185-13-41GCy1kYfP@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-196185-13@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-196185-13@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=196185 John Marino <marino@FreeBSD.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |marino@FreeBSD.org --- Comment #9 from John Marino <marino@FreeBSD.org> --- This is a patch to the source code, not a patch to the port. I see the last attachment is a "shar" of the entire port. In theory patches could be generated by comparing that to the current port. However, submitting "shar" instead of patches is not easy for anybody. Actually, these three attachments are causing me a great deal of confusion. Attachment 1: patch, Dec 23, seems to patch source Attachment 2: patch, Dec 23, seems to patch port but doesn't reference attachment 1 patch Attachment 3: shar, Jan 13, seems to replace port. It would help this PR along if: 1) all unnecessary attachments are designated "obsolete" so they get hidden and don't add to confusion. 2) Make sure patches to the port itself are present. 3) most importantly: poudriere logs for every platform to verify this port builds on all advertised platforms. I see "internal testing" is implied, but we want to see external testing, e.g. poudriere for verification purposes. -- 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-196185-13-41GCy1kYfP>