From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jun 13 00:51:27 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Delivered-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 601C316A46D for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2007 00:51:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd@bitfreak.org) Received: from mail.twinthornes.com (mail.twinthornes.com [65.75.198.147]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A37013C4B8 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2007 00:51:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd@bitfreak.org) Received: from [10.9.70.107] (pool-71-117-207-47.ptldor.fios.verizon.net [71.117.207.47]) by mail.twinthornes.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4213B14D; Tue, 12 Jun 2007 17:51:26 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <466F3F8E.2010404@bitfreak.org> Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 17:51:26 -0700 From: Darren Pilgrim User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (Windows/20070509) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Linimon References: <200706051316.l55DGSU0052272@lurza.secnetix.de> <466F1CCF.6020607@bitfreak.org> <20070613002128.GB21194@soaustin.net> In-Reply-To: <20070613002128.GB21194@soaustin.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: jroberson@chesapeake.net, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-amd64@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ports broken on amd64 [was: Re: Intel C2D COREs not used equally in FreeBSD 7.0-CURRENT i386] X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 00:51:27 -0000 Mark Linimon wrote: > On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 03:23:11PM -0700, Darren Pilgrim wrote: >> Is there a list of known amd64-broken ports or have they all been >> flagged in the tree with (NOT|ONLY)_FOR_ARCHS variables? > > They are flagged BROKEN when kris notices a bad result from the build > cluster (pointyhat.freebsd.org). For a long time, people have used > those *_FOR_ARCHS as a shorthand for conditionally marking them > broken, in some cases only because they didn't have an amd64 to test > with. These ports should be changed over; my feeling is that the > true use of *_FOR_ARCHS should only be for "port cannot be made to > work on this architecture". I'm a bit lost on this logic. Why would an unconditional flag be more appropriate than a conditional flag for a situation that is inherently conditional? BROKEN_WITH_MYSQL, BROKEN_WITH_PGSQL and BROKEN_WITH_PHP all have the purpose of preventing the build when the port isn't compatible with the target environment--using BROKEN as you describe seems to go against the model seen elsewhere.