Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 11:23:04 +0100 From: Simon Barner <barner@FreeBSD.org> To: "Pedro F. Giffuni" <giffunip@yahoo.com> Cc: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ports/78687: Warning cleanups for graphics/URT port Message-ID: <20050312102304.GC14469@zi025.glhnet.mhn.de> In-Reply-To: <20050311233859.22493.qmail@web51602.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050311233859.22493.qmail@web51602.mail.yahoo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--WplhKdTI2c8ulnbP Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Pedro F. Giffuni wrote: > > IMHO these kinds of patches do not belong into the ports collection in > > the first place. While they are correct, and reduce the number of > > compiler warnings and improve the general quality of the code, they are > > not necessary to make the software run on FreeBSD. > >=20 >=20 > Actually if someone wants to build the BRLCAD fb support some of them wil= l be > necessary. Okay, although you said that in the PR, I somehow did not noticed that. > The idea is, also, that if gcc (or ICC or TenDRA) is stricter in the > future it will not break URT (it has happened before), or at least that i= t will > not make be a nightmare to fix it again. >=20 > > Is there any chance to have those changes integrated upstream, i.e. by > > the authors of URT? > > >=20 > No, URT is not actively maintained anymore. It is part of BRLCAD, but I'v= e been > trying to convince them to un-bundle it so we that we can use our port. I= hope > they also unbundle Tcl, Tk, itcl, iTk, and iwidgets it's very bulky packa= ge > (the last three need updating in our ports tree too). Okay, then it's a totaly different situation -- if URT is not actively maintained anymore, why not integrate fixes that are floating around in mailing lists (like that IRIX patch you mentioned in the PR) into the ports collection? > =20 > > If that's not the case (because the software is abandoned), or the do > > not plan a new release within a reasonable timeframe, I'd prefer to have > > those patches bundled in one file, say patch-FIX-WARNINGS, so that our > > repository is not clobbered with a dozend of small, non-FreeBSD specific > > patches. > >=20 > Something like this happened with Spice and XView.. it was a mess to brea= k up > the patches afterwards to make sure we were not patching a file twice or = in > conflicting ways. I did the cleaning of those ports because I had some > responsability in that happening, but I won't do the same mistake again f= or > URT. I personally also dislike the approach of having a patch that touches multiple files (patch-aa, patch-ab, ...), but I though it would conform better to the port collection's standards this time. But if noone has objections, and you have experience in these things, I will of course honour your efforts and commit the patches as single files! >=20 > > So, to sum this up: I really appreciate your work very much, but IMO the > > ports collection is not the best place to store your patches. > >=20 >=20 > Admitedly I didn't explain this very well: The patch contains cleanups an= d some > minor fixes, but it also paves the way for building-in new functionality = so > that I can avoid re-building URT with BRLCAD. Which is great! Let's see whether they unbundle tcl/tk from the package, such that it can be installed in a much more sane way. >=20 > > Perhaps someone else from the ports@ list can share her/his opinion with > > us? > >=20 >=20 > I'm surely glad to receive feedback, and if someone else wants to maintai= n URT > I'll be glad to let him/her know my requirements. Cheers, Simon --WplhKdTI2c8ulnbP Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFCMsMICkn+/eutqCoRAnuEAKDtw+7MkSjgmCi9+uoNlm1yrUDXsQCg/MqU bukb3IY3nXVl3pQKT965T/Q= =KumD -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --WplhKdTI2c8ulnbP--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050312102304.GC14469>