From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Oct 18 07:50:52 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ports@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53BF81065674; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 07:50:52 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from itetcu@FreeBSD.org) Received: from worf.ds9.tecnik93.com (worf.ds9.tecnik93.com [81.196.207.130]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3E278FC1F; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 07:50:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (unknown [81.181.146.246]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by worf.ds9.tecnik93.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 450E422C547C; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 10:50:50 +0300 (EEST) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 10:50:48 +0300 From: Ion-Mihai Tetcu To: Stanislav Sedov Message-ID: <20111018105048.22cc991d@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: References: <20111011063602.GO68552@droso.net> <20111017153551.23281532@tetcu.info> <20111017135130.d9caa4f1.stas@FreeBSD.org> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.10 (GTK+ 2.24.6; amd64-portbld-freebsd9.0) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org, "Bjoern A. Zeeb" , Ports Management Team Subject: Re: [UPDATE] Re: Update on ports on 10.0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 07:50:52 -0000 On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 23:52:54 +0000 "Bjoern A. Zeeb" wrote: > On 17. Oct 2011, at 20:51 , Stanislav Sedov wrote: > > Hi, > > I shrinked that Cc: list dramatically. Thanks; I Cc'ed all maintainers of those high-profile ports. As a new update, we're now running an other -exp with jpeg fixed. > > On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 15:35:51 +0300 > > Ion-Mihai Tetcu mentioned: > > > >> > >> Here's a little status update: > >> We iterated through a few -exp runs (basically for ports/161404 -- > >> committed and ports/161431 -- skv@ any problem with it?). With > >> those two we can build around 7k packages. The majority of the > >> rest can't be built because of a few high profile ports that don't > >> package: expat (6581), curl (975), jpeg(5057), lcms(1080), > >> libiconv(11180), libltdl(1187), libogg(1947), pcre(5737), > >> python27(5935). > >> > >> http://pointyhat.freebsd.org/errorlogs/i386-10-latest/ > >> > >> What we'd like to do next is see how many ports we can package > >> after individually fixing those above. This will require a few > >> other -exps since undoubtedly we'll find other highly-depended-on > >> ports broken that weren't tried because of the blockers above. > >> > > > > It doesn't require an exp-run to understand that you won't move > > much further with just fixinng these ports. > > Well, there was a significant update from ~2800 to ~7000 ports by > just fixing 2 or 3? I think understanding these and handling them in > a well defined manner is a good idea. And we need to know which are broken and which aren't. > > patching similar to the patch Ed, Doug and other people proposed. > > Actually, that sed one-liner fixed like 99% of the ports in tree, Did you do a full run with the patch? Can you provide the list of ports that aren't fixed by the patch and the exact patch you used? Thanks. > > excluding some complex ones (like GCC). So why not commit that > > patch as a KNOB to bsd.port.mk like it was initially proposed and > > let people use it in individual ports makefiles to fix them (and > > portmgr@ can commit the initial bunch of these knobs)? This is the > > easiest thing you can do now, and you will be able to abandon it > > when the better solution is available (which is unlikely). > > I think that's what he was saying as a possible next step. If they > have the cycles currently while waiting for RC1 to happen let them do > it; we are talking in having things within a month not in spring next > year already. > > I would assume that the aforementioned patch might go into the > framework, would only be applied if a) OSVERSION>=10... and b) the > port has a knob that says "I need this to run". Yes. > > WRT your "submit upstream" comment, personanlly, I'd argue against > > this: > > We damn need it; they need to regen the stuff; it's going to take > months if not years to get 80% to that point and a couple of projects > might be dead and we might want to use a local patch then but the > sed-KNOB is a bandaid that must die again. > > I would argue that no port must add the KNOB (once it would exist, > should it) without having notified upstream. And you might know a > lot better than I do but ideally there would be a new official > libtool release before that and ideally the libtool people would have > by now fixed all the !FreeBSD similar cases... Hopefully so. -- IOnut - Un^d^dregistered ;) FreeBSD "user" "Intellectual Property" is nowhere near as valuable as "Intellect" FreeBSD committer -> itetcu@FreeBSD.org, PGP Key ID 057E9F8B493A297B