Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 16:37:42 -0700 From: "Michael C. Shultz" <ringworm01@gmail.com> To: pav@freebsd.org, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, portmgr@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports/Mk/bsd.port.mk,v 1.517 2005/09/15 12:24:33 question Message-ID: <200509251637.44134.ringworm01@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <1127691447.3077.8.camel@ikaros.oook.cz> References: <200509251559.53576.ringworm01@gmail.com> <1127691447.3077.8.camel@ikaros.oook.cz>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sunday 25 September 2005 16:37, Pav Lucistnik wrote:
> Michael C. Shultz p=C3=AD=C5=A1e v ne 25. 09. 2005 v 15:59 -0700:
> > Is it possible/desirable to modify bsd.port.mk so that
> > ports marked IGNORE or BROKEN exit with an error
> > code, like "make check-conflicts" does if there is a conflict?
> >
> > Right now there is a problem with sysutils/portmanager
> > not properly handling ports marked BROKEN because
> > make seems to exit with no error. I could add parsing
> > Makefiles for the term "BROKEN" to portmanager, but that
> > seems a shame, because untill now portmanager has never
> > needed to snoop the insides of Makefiles.
>
> what about running "make -V BROKEN" ?
That still seems to return no error code.
I'm no perl programmer, but I tried adding this to
bsd.port.mk just below check-conflicts:
=2Eif !target(check-broken)
check-broken:
=2Eif defined(BROKEN)
${ECHO_MSG}; \
${ECHO_MSG} "=3D=3D=3D=3D> ${PKGNAME} marked broken"; \
exit 1
=2Eendif
=2Eendif
It works for my purposes, but I've never tried submitting anything on the=20
ports infrastructure, do you think this would fly? It sure would make my=20
life easier, because all I would have to do is test "make check-broken"=20
target.
=2DMike
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200509251637.44134.ringworm01>