Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2022 07:20:12 +0200 From: =?UTF-8?Q?Fernando_Apestegu=C3=ADa?= <fernape@freebsd.org> To: jbo@insane.engineer Cc: Dimitry Andric <dim@freebsd.org>, "ports@freebsd.org" <ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Build issue with i386 port Message-ID: <CAGwOe2a1zBNjdHQFwOWP73KrfCpBP=XRE45xiuPzEa2C9mbxhg@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <LTAF21PLVK3hsLjTbdbf7-oyCo8Avy7rPN3R5t9Wh6ogCLPNvzhhOC6OKM2tQLhQDc6THDKs52U5HhFj9iE2ruXFNC-BGnU9wwMSJIp55Yc=@insane.engineer> References: <HHY42GcIqbl9KVSvHSzg73YO7HcDnD_PD4r9wDzBtyH0RPJcBXGdsfdwCYDixZRJRjN3qktWgORg2apUdq9YeGycdg1lLHZcyZ6PTIXTuQY=@insane.engineer> <zfL6oy-z-MOKJcsJTWbT4bXx4TCQCLUWVzLxT3DgK6tpyDutGVNFjovLSBm78Q-sDQ0lz8tx4IyODhzrDhSPRR3wXpQJ9yk-7xlDu8wiW6w=@insane.engineer> <CAGwOe2a=oNCK8jryHMhD11OQHnAw3C34M18aVFF8tSHubYxyGQ@mail.gmail.com> <168EF37D-8591-4F8C-93E1-F15FDA10F311@FreeBSD.org> <9ZQ1RgjxwamYo_YNKUEfd5Aq7X9m6pUgRdbyxcj71_qRzdufKX8g9V-Xe8jsCn8b6Uo3jvVA3IwtJeYm7N4A6i35MqBI5PrVBuf_rKxjd60=@insane.engineer> <CAGwOe2aTRj2f1MevVFgf-STN%2BW5Qu9YKx0kJLSi1O8JhZhr9Lg@mail.gmail.com> <P_h1oS5FIYadf35LcykGfazr3ORBtALvAen4MteLReMrppackTnB1dqlsq0kmbRivygESHricc3uo-yXRJya-cb2SWi7n1Va5mvvFse1OyI=@insane.engineer> <CAGwOe2YVjQOhD3tZqu8Xk_hBXsqB8gQvW3bn_Z4XOp3sLbQ_SQ@mail.gmail.com> <LTAF21PLVK3hsLjTbdbf7-oyCo8Avy7rPN3R5t9Wh6ogCLPNvzhhOC6OKM2tQLhQDc6THDKs52U5HhFj9iE2ruXFNC-BGnU9wwMSJIp55Yc=@insane.engineer>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 10:12 PM <jbo@insane.engineer> wrote: > > I'd have a follow up question based on your commit: What's the reason for= not increasing PORTVERSION after modifying the port? That the resultant package will not change and that the port becomes buildable where it wasn't previously. https://docs.freebsd.org/en/books/porters-handbook/book/#makefile-naming Cheers. > > ~ Joel > > ------- Original Message ------- > > On Monday, April 11th, 2022 at 20:18, Fernando Apestegu=C3=ADa <fernape@f= reebsd.org> 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-d= istfiles > > > > > > > > +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=3Dc6e6c7f15310fe8816924= 47dbb56749f0860670b > > > > Cheers! > > > > > ------- Original Message ------- > > > > > > On Monday, April 11th, 2022 at 20:10, Fernando Apestegu=C3=ADa fernap= e@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 = the port is building didn't yet support i386. Meanwhile, I was able to comp= ile > > > > > > > > > > successfully on my VMs because I was using the main/master branch= which 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= lot 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 t= here 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-d= istfiles > > > > > > > > +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.= org wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On 11 Apr 2022, at 19:53, Fernando Apestegu=C3=ADa fernape@free= bsd.org wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 7:24 PM jbo@insane.engineer wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > gmake[1]: Entering directory '/wrkdirs/usr/ports/sysutils/c= pufetch/work/cpufetch-1.00' > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Makefile:38: Unsupported arch detected: i386. See https://g= ithub.com/Dr-Noob/cpufetch#1-support > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Makefile:39: If your architecture is supported but the comp= ilation fails, please open an issue in https://github.com/Dr-Noob/cpufetch/= issues > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Makefile:40: *** Aborting compilation. Stop. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > gmake[1]: Leaving directory '/wrkdirs/usr/ports/sysutils/cp= ufetch/work/cpufetch-1.00' > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > =3D=3D=3D> Compilation failed unexpectedly. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Try to set MAKE_JOBS_UNSAFE=3Dyes and rebuild before report= ing the failure to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the maintainer. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *** Error code 1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Upstream's Makefile uses $(shell uname -m) to determine the= architecture [2]. My VMs are successfully reporting this as > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i386 which upstream's Makefile appears to support explicitl= y. 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 t= he software in FreeBSD i386 VMs I think > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that the issue is related to my port and not upstream. But = then 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 = the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 th= e repo? I > > > > > > > > > > > > > > will also send a patch upstream. > > > > > > > > > > > > No need :) > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/Dr-Noob/cpufetch/commit/0db9f1f5c26e57a6383f= 4609c5605ed5d3d41fd1 > > > > > > > > > > > > -Dimitry
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAGwOe2a1zBNjdHQFwOWP73KrfCpBP=XRE45xiuPzEa2C9mbxhg>