Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2020 16:23:43 +0800 From: Marcelo Araujo <araujobsdport@gmail.com> To: Rebecca Cran <rebecca@bsdio.com> Cc: Dima Panov <fluffy@freebsd.org>, Rebecca Cran <bcran@freebsd.org>, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r525460 - in head: . sysutils sysutils/uefi-edk2-bhyve sysutils/uefi-edk2-bhyve-devel sysutils/uefi-edk2-bhyve/files Message-ID: <CAOfEmZg%2B-%2B_tsN1oaTrtDc4_C%2BaQcp51N%2Bn0C=Bg1VA3OaYs0g@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <f497fdde-555b-cf06-e434-f978e39ddc23@bsdio.com> References: <202002070444.0174iOaP083542@repo.freebsd.org> <98b1bcb9-f2f4-432b-abd3-4885b1cb9de6@Canary> <f497fdde-555b-cf06-e434-f978e39ddc23@bsdio.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Feb 8, 2020, 12:31 PM Rebecca Cran <rebecca@bsdio.com> wrote: > On 2020-02-07 20:56, Dima Panov wrote: > > > Did CSM option was removed by mistake? > Sources still have this knob, -csm slave port still exist, and > bhyve-firmware port still defaults to both variants in depends > > > Yes, it wasn't deliberate. But at the same time, CSM support is broken. So > it might be a few days to a couple of weeks before I debug what's wrong and > come up with a fix. > > Would you like to CSM option fixed in the port beforehand, perhaps with > the csm option marked BROKEN? > You should have tested it better, you even didn't bother to check if other ports depends of this one, and silly me thought you have done it. Revert it would be the best option IMHO. But in other hand as the damage is done already, mark as broken try to fix it as well as your procedures how you test software. It is not the first or second time you break these porta because you don't run enough tests. Cheers, > -- > Rebecca Cran > > >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAOfEmZg%2B-%2B_tsN1oaTrtDc4_C%2BaQcp51N%2Bn0C=Bg1VA3OaYs0g>