Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2013 00:25:35 +0400 From: Boris Samorodov <bsam@passap.ru> To: Guido Falsi <madpilot@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@FreeBSD.org>, Dimitry Andric <dim@FreeBSD.org>, Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org>, FreeBSD ports list <freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: ports libiconv -> base iconv Message-ID: <5222513F.4020403@passap.ru> In-Reply-To: <5222414D.10209@passap.ru> References: <201308300952.r7U9qKsF026518@svn.freebsd.org> <52206DF8.1000401@FreeBSD.org> <5221CEB4.7090109@passap.ru> <B9A33C6E-B731-4862-B50E-74F52924FB7E@FreeBSD.org> <5221FD7C.1040501@FreeBSD.org> <5222414D.10209@passap.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
31.08.2013 23:17, Boris Samorodov пишет: > (let's change the subject to a more apropriate) > > 31.08.2013 18:28, Guido Falsi пишет: > >> I have spent a few hours experimenting and produced this PR: >> >> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/181693 Guido, here are some notes about your PR and patches. There are two patches. Seems that the second one is not needed. Is it? I know it's very time consuming and thanks for your work, but... I would not recommend to include at the patch changes not linked with the matter. Ports are changing (headers, optionsNG, LIB_DEPENDS syntax, etc.) -- it may be extreamly difficult to you to create a patch which is ready to test by portmgr, then do some changes to the patch and then finally to get a patch which is ready to commit. Actually it doesn't apply _now_ (several hours after submitting a PR!), not to say in a week or two... BTW, failed hunks are almost all have number 1, so headers are changing rapidly. And I have a question about the amount of ports at your patch. I grepped the first patch for "Index" and got 97 files. So you patch about a hundred ports. Then I grepped the portstree makefiles for "iconv" and got 778 ports (let's assume some are false positives, so actual amout may be aroud 700). So the question is: are those 600 untouched ports currently ready to use base iconv (well, after bmk changes)? If yes, then our portstree is at a good state! (Well, maybe those that just have USES=iconv are ready?) Sorry, I did just a quick glance at the matter, so you may understand it better. I beg your pardon if I'm terribly wrong. Thanks! -- WBR, Boris Samorodov (bsam) FreeBSD Committer, http://www.FreeBSD.org The Power To Serve
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5222513F.4020403>