Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2024 14:17:12 -0700 From: Yuri Victorovich <yuri@freebsd.org> To: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org> Cc: ports-committers@freebsd.org, dev-commits-ports-all@freebsd.org, dev-commits-ports-main@freebsd.org Subject: Re: git: d22f15315b93 - main - devel/gmake43: Corrections Message-ID: <56f4fdc0-f9fb-4578-ae25-88bfc5aad9f0@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <amuylyapksvtcss2q5ucsxxfi7yimynnoxa7ejjyn424h2lzef@52rxt2kwejxa> References: <202403292007.42TK7lhI072363@gitrepo.freebsd.org> <l4gu54w6ef4yqqvtetludbr4mo7krpifillf66loskj2lrc4vr@ntj6frlccsmt> <amuylyapksvtcss2q5ucsxxfi7yimynnoxa7ejjyn424h2lzef@52rxt2kwejxa>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------Ql0y0rg0l0GPNye91yfav19Q
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On 3/29/24 13:56, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> As I have been told by other this is not explicit enough, an explicit version of
> this email is: please revert gmake43 addition we are not at a point where it is
> actually required.
But should the users of science/nwchem do (at some point I was one of them)?
With gmake-4.4.1 it builds for 20+ hours and times out.
Try 'pkg search nwchem' - it isn't found.
They aren't going to quickly fix the build. It isn't slightly broken, it
is broken a lot, and has always been. With gmake-4.3 it is also
unnecessarily slow, but passable.
Are you suggesting to just revert the change, and make NWChem broken again?
Could you please elaborate how is this going to make thing better?
Is it worse to have one extra devel/gmakeNN version used to work around
this problem and fix the failure, or to keep science/nwchem broken?
Looking forward to see how is your suggestion beneficial.
Thanks,
Yuri
--------------Ql0y0rg0l0GPNye91yfav19Q
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 3/29/24 13:56, Baptiste Daroussin
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:amuylyapksvtcss2q5ucsxxfi7yimynnoxa7ejjyn424h2lzef@52rxt2kwejxa">
<pre>As I have been told by other this is not explicit enough, an explicit version of
this email is: please revert gmake43 addition we are not at a point where it is
actually required.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>But should the users of science/nwchem do (at some point I was
one of them)?</p>
<p>With gmake-4.4.1 it builds for 20+ hours and times out.</p>
<p>Try 'pkg search nwchem' - it isn't found.</p>
<p>They aren't going to quickly fix the build. It isn't slightly
broken, it is broken a lot, and has always been. With gmake-4.3 it
is also unnecessarily slow, but passable.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Are you suggesting to just revert the change, and make NWChem
broken again?</p>
<p>Could you please elaborate how is this going to make thing
better?</p>
<p>Is it worse to have one extra devel/gmakeNN version used to work
around this problem and fix the failure, or to keep science/nwchem
broken?<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Looking forward to see how is your suggestion beneficial.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Thanks,<br>
</p>
<p>Yuri</p>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>
--------------Ql0y0rg0l0GPNye91yfav19Q--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?56f4fdc0-f9fb-4578-ae25-88bfc5aad9f0>