Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2010 14:26:13 +0200 From: Emanuel Haupt <ehaupt@critical.ch> To: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org, Emanuel Haupt <ehaupt@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: Inverting OPTIONS (Was: Re: cvs commit: ports/net-im/libpurple Makefile distinfo) Message-ID: <20100731142613.7bb36c2e.ehaupt@critical.ch> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1007261749580.20040@qbhto.arg> References: <201007250132.o6P1Whjh069411@repoman.freebsd.org> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1007250056300.1689@qbhto.arg> <20100726135113.0ee77eea.ehaupt@critical.ch> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1007261326560.33929@qbhto.arg> <20100726233950.822f4f13.ehaupt@FreeBSD.org> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1007261749580.20040@qbhto.arg>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > On Mon, 26 Jul 2010, Emanuel Haupt wrote: > > > Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org> wrote: > >> On Mon, 26 Jul 2010, Emanuel Haupt wrote: > >> > >>> Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > >>>> ports/net-im/libpurple/files/patch-libpurple_protocols_oscar_oscar.c > >>>> has been added to the latest version, so the patch is no longer > >>>> needed. > >>> > >>> Also, the PLIST is broken if the PERL option is specified: > >>> > >>> http://people.freebsd.org/~ehaupt/buildlogs/libpurple-2.7.2.log > >>> > >>> Maybe from time to time a QAT exp run with inverted OPTIONS values > >>> would be revealing. > >> > >> As I said on IRC yesterday, there is no reason to expect that > >> simply inverting OPTIONS would work. A lot of OPTIONS are not > >> binary, and the defaults are chose to work together, often in > >> harmony with the dependencies that they trigger. > >> > >> Put another way, it does not logically follow that if "A, B, and ! > >> C" works that "!A, !B, and C" would also work. > > > > I didn't assume that. It would be an easy way to spot simple > > mistakes such as incomplete package lists, unfetchable optional > > distfiles, things like that. > > Well then why don't you explain in more detail what you're > suggesting, because one of us is confused. :) Inverting OPTIONS setting in an exp run every now and then could screen *simple* mistakes. For instance conditionally defined patchfiles, distfiles, extra patches that don't apply anymore and so on. There is no way this can ensure that those OPTIONS would even make the port build but that would not be the intention. Emanuel
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100731142613.7bb36c2e.ehaupt>