From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jan 20 13:14:06 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 258D5106564A for ; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 13:14:06 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from utisoft@gmail.com) Received: from mail-iy0-f182.google.com (mail-iy0-f182.google.com [209.85.210.182]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D84F08FC13 for ; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 13:14:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: by iagz16 with SMTP id z16so1405443iag.13 for ; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 05:14:05 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=Gm5lil9+VWLKoyn+kPHgUAx7Z6L2YwMP9SqPcKIF0MA=; b=tBxRljuMRDTEdyOKQHhwfav7Rf4MbiMpr03bB+SQiPPYhzVWoZazzWkivs8bpvws9w cfyQvgEyFlq9k1paX+JLaRcykUoufTLSF05VMCdluj1zcj7UKINYFg1kkxPFkc1JNfED 7w4XHhI2uTQapMcgWElWODuRB/06oxOrNqkPY= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.42.142.129 with SMTP id s1mr25678409icu.42.1327065245432; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 05:14:05 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.231.207.7 with HTTP; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 05:14:05 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.231.207.7 with HTTP; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 05:14:05 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <4F177264.3090708@freebsd.org> <4F17DB1C.6080503@infracaninophile.co.uk> <4F193FD5.8070208@infracaninophile.co.uk> <4F1966C2.6090908@infracaninophile.co.uk> Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 13:14:05 +0000 Message-ID: From: Chris Rees To: Matthew Seaman Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: with the cvs history? trying to help INDEX builds. 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: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 13:14:06 -0000 On 20 Jan 2012 13:06, "Matthew Seaman" wrote: > > On 20/01/2012 12:53, Chris Rees wrote: > > On 20 Jan 2012 10:20, "Matthew Seaman" > > wrote: > >> > >> On 20/01/2012 09:18, Chris Rees wrote: > >>> On 19 Jan 2012 08:58, "Matthew Seaman" < m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk> > >>> wrote: > >> > >>>> On 19/01/2012 01:31, Michael Scheidell wrote: > >> > >>>>> anyway, worth the cycles? > >>>>> take out -.include ; -.if ${ARCH} == "sparc64" > >>>>> -BROKEN= Does not install on sparc64 > >>>>> -.endif > >>>>> and replace it with NOT_FOR_ARCHS= sparc64 ? > >> > >>>> I'd say worth it to standardize on NOT_FOR_ARCHS / ONLY_FOR_ARCHS to > >>>> handle this sort of thing. By my calculations there are 28 ports that > >>>> set 'BROKEN' because of architecture incompatibility on my amd64 > >>>> system[*], whereas there are 904 ports that set either ONLY_FOR_ARCHS > > or > >>>> NOT_FOR_ARCHS. > >> > >>> No, it's not worth it :) > >>> > >>> This means we won't be able to differentiate between BROKEN and IGNORE. > >> > >> Not even if people make use of the {NOT,ONLY}_FOR_ARCHS_REASON or > >> {NOT,ONLY}_FOR_ARCHS_REASON_${ARCH} variables? > >> > >> Actually I take your point, that it should be possible to distinguish > >> between ports that permanently won't work on some architectures by > >> design, and ports that temporarily don't work because of mistakes or > >> broken dependencies or so forth, and that are expected to be fixed > >> sooner rather than later. Unfortunately those two cases are already > >> pretty confused. For instance (arbitrarily picking out a few grep hits): > >> > >> ./audio/amarok-kde4/Makefile:NOT_FOR_ARCHS_REASON_sparc64= > > "GCC-related > >> build error" > >> ./audio/openal/Makefile:NOT_FOR_ARCHS_REASON_ia64= does not compile > >> ./biology/migrate/Makefile:ONLY_FOR_ARCHS_REASON= Does not compile > >> > >> Where 'does not compile' or 'fails to install' are similarly the most > >> popular reasons given for arch-related brokenness using the BROKEN > >> variable. Given the banal and uninformative nature of such reasons, > >> there's no easy way to tell if this is a temporary condition or not. > >> > >> Hmm... Perhaps if there was a BROKEN_FOR_ARCH{,_REASON{,${ARCH}}} set of > >> variables documented alongside the other ..FOR_ARCH variables? > > > > Occasionally someone runs an exp- for sparc64 (lol) etc. > > > > They use TRYBROKEN to test packages marked BROKEN, but ONLY_FOR_ARCHS sets > > IGNORE. > > > > Ports marked this way (incorrectly) will never be tested, and thus never > > marked fixed. > > > > Yes, I understand thae distinction between BROKEN and IGNORE, thank you > very much. So the BROKEN_FOR_ARCH variable family should ultimately set > BROKEN rather than IGNORE. Obviously. > Sorry, missed that bit. Thing is... adding this change to bsd.port.mk will actually mean that instead of each BROKEN Makefile testing for it, *every* port's Makefile then tests for it. Chris