From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Dec 22 22:25:30 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A6FE106568F for ; Tue, 22 Dec 2009 22:25:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from david@vizion2000.net) Received: from dns1.vizion2000.net (dns1.vizion2000.net [62.49.197.50]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 582818FC08 for ; Tue, 22 Dec 2009 22:25:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: by dns1.vizion2000.net (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 9324A34D446; Tue, 22 Dec 2009 22:25:22 +0000 (GMT) From: David Southwell Organization: Voice & Vision To: Mark Linimon Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 22:25:22 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.12.4 (FreeBSD/7.2-RELEASE-p3; KDE/4.3.4; amd64; ; ) References: <200912221123.58216.david@vizion2000.net> <20091222115555.GA28605@lonesome.com> <20091222203905.GA5879@lonesome.com> In-Reply-To: <20091222203905.GA5879@lonesome.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200912222225.22539.david@vizion2000.net> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Ports marked as IGNORE - (cups-pdf) & (urlview) why - how long? 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, 22 Dec 2009 22:25:30 -0000 > > Looks like all the PR's were not in place before the test was run on > > pointyhat. > > pointyhat doesn't have anything to do with PRs. It runs based on what > is checked into CVS when its runs start. How would it be able to do > otherwise? The ports PR count is currently 998. How is a computer > program going to know which ones are relevant or correct? > > > I deduced from the information on my system that the error was more > > likely due to a false positive for failure by the testing procedure > > rather than due to an inherent failure in the code. > > build error != install error. If you look at the two error logs, you'll > see that those are install errors (files required to be installed not > installed; files required to be deinstalled not being deinstalled). > > Ports that do not allow a clean install/deinstall cycle are broken, > whether they compile or not. > > mcl > Yes I agree BUT it is suggested that the reason that there was not a clean install/deinstall cycle was because the pointyhat test may have been done without the benefit of PR ports 141375. Here is Mathew Seaman's take on it: "Looks like the problem would have been fixed in PR ports/141375, which modified the cups-base port to create the directory in question. As that fix was applied on the 12th at 19:39 and the last pointyhat test on cups-pdf appears to have been on the same day at 20:57 I reckon pointyhat just missed getting the fix for at least one of its test cases by about >< that much." What we need now is another test on pointyhat to see whether his speculation is accurate. It seems highly probable to me. Time will tell David