Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2013 01:33:17 +0200 From: Guido Falsi <madpilot@FreeBSD.org> To: Boris Samorodov <bsam@passap.ru> 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: <52227D3D.9020109@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <5222513F.4020403@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> <5222513F.4020403@passap.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 08/31/13 22:25, Boris Samorodov wrote: > 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? Unluckily it was a little mangled by gnats, it's one single patch, but gnats split it due to a piece it was not understanding. I'm creating another updated patch I'll send as a followup avoiding parts(props changes) which could confuse gnats! > > 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. This is the first time I work with such a big patch, I'm not sure what is the best way to work with it. Maybe the exp run could be run against a specific revision of the ports tree with which the patch applies. This could be a way to get some result even if not against the latest tree, it would be just a few days behind at most. > > 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?) I mainly centered my attention on the ones with USES=iconv, which were the ones I saw failing most, since most of those have pieces in the Makefiles to force the ported software to link against libiconv.so in /usr/local. I asked for the exp run for the specific reason I'd like to get a better idea of what is the shape of our ports tree, and to get a better understanding of how hard the task of switching to lib iconv could really be. From the subset of ports I have tested this (around 1200, mainly the ones I use in some way) it looks to me that our ports tree isn't in bad shape. On the 1200 ports I use I had to patch just a few, around 12. Most ports seem to just do the right thing anyway. In fact if it wasn't for cups and a pair of other high profile ones failing I wouldn't have noticed the problem at all! > > 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! > It is quite possible it's me being terribly wrong. That's what I'm trying to ascertain. :) I'm just at the first steps in this, I still need a few days to test it all completely, and study a correct update path for all users. -- Guido Falsi <madpilot@FreeBSD.org>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?52227D3D.9020109>