From nobody Mon Apr 11 20:12:42 2022 X-Original-To: ports@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AC8911DA86D for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2022 20:12:52 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jbo@insane.engineer) Received: from mail-4323.proton.ch (mail-4323.proton.ch [185.70.43.23]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "protonmail.com", Issuer "R3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4Kcg5G5K3tz3MRt; Mon, 11 Apr 2022 20:12:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jbo@insane.engineer) Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 20:12:42 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=insane.engineer; s=protonmail2; t=1649707967; bh=NDP6vy6IrBC4ogaDyq0e79awV/Creu7f9s5308DJ9tc=; h=Date:To:From:Cc:Reply-To:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To: References:From:To:Cc:Date:Subject:Reply-To:Feedback-ID: Message-ID; b=exlfqIeyEtX32QLmUsr7N3IdOwQHB9ewTaYWs2o+iATCSEfm5Iku0Oy22beu4rceG 4taUBCZxHXL0QuHWWSrdhrOu5cjwwRTvEL0nOLQXY13Dx6KlIpln53Voa8GeSMXGa+ BEy90ScJIMhvwtvspDm/ryyvqGdrfFa9YXv0mzuZixVdjjijvHpMHkX7VZoOiN4Olu EF+uEikCmpQQD5lckiAKbTOxWteW3hJGjxmEg00iU1ul3fug9Xxez13AmnXnO5Iblr nBNrnxUWuXmDcwEUciqIruDBwx0Gr7COGZtYiBaD7r/a0SYyZzOK6B4QgjebpN5CNk wkjwzoCtIy77Q== To: =?utf-8?Q?Fernando_Apestegu=C3=ADa?= From: jbo@insane.engineer Cc: Dimitry Andric , "ports@freebsd.org" Reply-To: jbo@insane.engineer Subject: Re: Build issue with i386 port Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: <168EF37D-8591-4F8C-93E1-F15FDA10F311@FreeBSD.org> <9ZQ1RgjxwamYo_YNKUEfd5Aq7X9m6pUgRdbyxcj71_qRzdufKX8g9V-Xe8jsCn8b6Uo3jvVA3IwtJeYm7N4A6i35MqBI5PrVBuf_rKxjd60=@insane.engineer> List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-ports List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4Kcg5G5K3tz3MRt X-Spamd-Bar: --- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=pass header.d=insane.engineer header.s=protonmail2 header.b=exlfqIey; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=insane.engineer; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of jbo@insane.engineer designates 185.70.43.23 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=jbo@insane.engineer X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-3.99 / 15.00]; HAS_REPLYTO(0.00)[jbo@insane.engineer]; TO_DN_EQ_ADDR_SOME(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[insane.engineer:s=protonmail2]; REPLYTO_EQ_FROM(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip4:185.70.43.0/24]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[insane.engineer:+]; DMARC_POLICY_ALLOW(-0.50)[insane.engineer,none]; FROM_NO_DN(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.99)[-0.993]; MLMMJ_DEST(0.00)[ports]; RCVD_COUNT_ZERO(0.00)[0]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; RWL_MAILSPIKE_VERYGOOD(0.00)[185.70.43.23:from]; ASN(0.00)[asn:62371, ipnet:185.70.43.0/24, country:CH]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[] X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: N I'd have a follow up question based on your commit: What's the reason for n= ot increasing PORTVERSION after modifying the port? ~ Joel ------- Original Message ------- On Monday, April 11th, 2022 at 20:18, Fernando Apestegu=C3=ADa wrote: > On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 8:14 PM jbo@insane.engineer wrote: > > > > I would cherry pick the patch with PATCHFILES: > > > > > > https://docs.freebsd.org/en/books/porters-handbook/book/#makefile-dis= tfiles > > > > > > +PATCH_SITES=3D https://github.com/Dr-Noob/cpufetch/commit/ > > > > > > +PATCHFILES=3D 0db9f1f5c26e57a6383f4609c5605ed5d3d41fd1.patch:-p1 > > > > > > I already have the change ready to push it. Shall we? > > > > Green light from my side! > > > > Thank you for your efforts, it's greatly appreciated. > > Done. https://cgit.FreeBSD.org/ports/commit/?id=3Dc6e6c7f15310fe881692447= dbb56749f0860670b > > Cheers! > > > ------- Original Message ------- > > > > On Monday, April 11th, 2022 at 20:10, Fernando Apestegu=C3=ADa fernape@= freebsd.org wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 8:04 PM jbo@insane.engineer wrote: > > > > > > > Oooh! This is so obvious it almost hurts... > > > > > > > > So basically what happened is that upstream's v1.00 release that th= e port is building didn't yet support i386. Meanwhile, I was able to compil= e > > > > > > > > successfully on my VMs because I was using the main/master branch w= hich does support i386. > > > > > > > > I hope we can just consider this a beginner's mistake :p > > > > > > > > This brings me to the next question: According to Repology [1], a l= ot of packages are using the v1.01 tag whereas our port is currently > > > > > > > > using v1.00. The reason I didn't update the port yet is because the= re isn't an official release on the upstream's GitHub page. > > > > > > > > What is the recommended/preferred way of handling this? > > > > > > I would cherry pick the patch with PATCHFILES: > > > > > > https://docs.freebsd.org/en/books/porters-handbook/book/#makefile-dis= tfiles > > > > > > +PATCH_SITES=3D https://github.com/Dr-Noob/cpufetch/commit/ > > > > > > +PATCHFILES=3D 0db9f1f5c26e57a6383f4609c5605ed5d3d41fd1.patch:-p1 > > > > > > I already have the change ready to push it. Shall we? > > > > > > > [1] https://repology.org/project/cpufetch/versions > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > ~ Joel > > > > > > > > ------- Original Message ------- > > > > > > > > On Monday, April 11th, 2022 at 19:57, Dimitry Andric dim@FreeBSD.or= g wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 11 Apr 2022, at 19:53, Fernando Apestegu=C3=ADa fernape@freebs= d.org wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 7:24 PM jbo@insane.engineer wrote: > > > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > > gmake[1]: Entering directory '/wrkdirs/usr/ports/sysutils/cpu= fetch/work/cpufetch-1.00' > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Makefile:38: Unsupported arch detected: i386. See https://git= hub.com/Dr-Noob/cpufetch#1-support > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Makefile:39: If your architecture is supported but the compil= ation fails, please open an issue in https://github.com/Dr-Noob/cpufetch/is= sues > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Makefile:40: *** Aborting compilation. Stop. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > gmake[1]: Leaving directory '/wrkdirs/usr/ports/sysutils/cpuf= etch/work/cpufetch-1.00' > > > > > > > > > > > > > > =3D=3D=3D> Compilation failed unexpectedly. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Try to set MAKE_JOBS_UNSAFE=3Dyes and rebuild before reportin= g the failure to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the maintainer. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *** Error code 1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Upstream's Makefile uses $(shell uname -m) to determine the a= rchitecture [2]. My VMs are successfully reporting this as > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i386 which upstream's Makefile appears to support explicitly.= After all, I'm also able to build this software > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on those VMs if just cloning & running gmake manually. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not really sure where to go from here. As I can build the= software in FreeBSD i386 VMs I think > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that the issue is related to my port and not upstream. But th= en again, the build fails "within" upstream's Makefile. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could somebody help me out here? > > > > > > > > > > > > When the Makefile checks the output of uname -m, it compares th= e > > > > > > > > > > > > result with a list of values that includes i686 but not i386. > > > > > > > > > > > > I think a simple REINPLACE_CMD would suffice here. > > > > > > > > > > > > Since I failed to detect this, do you want me to fix it in the = repo? I > > > > > > > > > > > > will also send a patch upstream. > > > > > > > > > > No need :) > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/Dr-Noob/cpufetch/commit/0db9f1f5c26e57a6383f46= 09c5605ed5d3d41fd1 > > > > > > > > > > -Dimitry