From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Oct 19 08:31:36 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ports@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8A841065674; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 08:31:36 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from itetcu@FreeBSD.org) Received: from worf.ds9.tecnik93.com (worf.ds9.tecnik93.com [81.196.207.130]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 756EA8FC0A; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 08:31:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (unknown [81.181.146.246]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by worf.ds9.tecnik93.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 40F1F22C54B5; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 11:31:35 +0300 (EEST) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 11:31:36 +0300 From: Ion-Mihai Tetcu To: Stanislav Sedov Message-ID: <20111019113136.316cb665@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20111019010420.646c0938.stas@FreeBSD.org> References: <20111011063602.GO68552@droso.net> <20111017153551.23281532@tetcu.info> <20111017135130.d9caa4f1.stas@FreeBSD.org> <20111018223146.GA93539@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> <20111019105938.5aa842a4@FreeBSD.org> <20111019010420.646c0938.stas@FreeBSD.org> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.10 (GTK+ 2.24.6; amd64-portbld-freebsd9.0) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org, Peter Jeremy Subject: Re: [UPDATE] Re: Update on ports on 10.0 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: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 08:31:36 -0000 On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 01:04:20 -0700 Stanislav Sedov wrote: > On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 10:59:38 +0300 > Ion-Mihai Tetcu mentioned: > > > Unfortunately we don't seem to have any other way to go, for the (and yes, I hate the idea) > > big majority of the ports. The fix is basically identical, so it > > doesn't make sense to have a zillion of patch files in a zillion of > > ports. > > What, on the other hand, makes sense is to have the fix that should > > include: > > a) a KNOB (WITH_FBSD10_FIX or similar), > > b) that only is run from bsd.port.mk when OSVERSION>1000000 > > c) runs the latest version of the above patch. > > The KNOB's existence allow us to turn on the fix only for broken > > ports, and easily know what these broken ports are -- so we can poke > > maintainers from time to time about upstream fixes, ... > > Sounds good to me. A few more days. > > Presumably $UPSTREAM wants it software to be able to build on > > FreeBSD even outside the PT, especially if this doesn't imply much > > work on his part. > > You'd be surprized how many of them do not care about FreeBSD > altogether. Even if you send them patches. Oh, I know, believe I know. But that's not the majority, and anyway it should stop us trying to do the right thing. -- IOnut - Un^d^dregistered ;) FreeBSD "user" "Intellectual Property" is nowhere near as valuable as "Intellect" FreeBSD committer -> itetcu@FreeBSD.org, PGP Key ID 057E9F8B493A297B