Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 10:01:41 +0100 From: Matthew Seaman <m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk> To: Ed Schouten <ed@80386.nl> Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Instafix for FreeBSD ports brokenness on 10.0? Message-ID: <4E8433F5.30005@infracaninophile.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <20110929084725.GN91943@hoeg.nl> References: <20110929084725.GN91943@hoeg.nl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--------------enig874CD352DC13EF5A1CC82158
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On 29/09/2011 09:47, Ed Schouten wrote:
> Hi folks,
>=20
> Why can't we simply fix the entire ports tree at once by doing somethin=
g
> like this?
>=20
> find ${WRKSRC} -type f \( -name config.libpath -o \
> -name config.rpath -o -name configure -o -name libtool.m4 \) \
> -exec sed -i 's/freebsd1\*)/SHOULDNOTMATCHANYTHING)/' {} +
>=20
> Just to be safe, we can only execute this when OSVERSION is 10.0.
>=20
Because that's a change to the upstream distfiles downloaded from the
net. So this change would have to be implemented by adding patch files
to every port that needed it, or by adding a new make target in the
various Makefiles.
However, this is going to be a huge amount of churn and disruption in
the ports, and if you hadn't noticed, we're right in the middle of the
process of generating 9.0-RELEASE. Meaning that now is not the time to
implement widespread changes that will throw the ports tree into disarray=
=2E
So people that run -CURRENT -- people that, mind you, are expected to be
pretty competent Unix developers capable of dealing with the much worse
systemic problems that tend to pop up when running bleeding edge code --
those people are being asked to put up with ports brokenness for a few
weeks. Work-arounds have been published, and I'm sure there's quite a
lot of work going on behind the scenes to make the eventual fix pretty
seamless.
If that doesn't work for you, then try 9.0-BETA3 for a while. There's
virtually no difference to -CURRENT at the moment, and it doesn't tickle
this particular bug.
Cheers,
Matthew
--=20
Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard
Flat 3
PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate
JID: matthew@infracaninophile.co.uk Kent, CT11 9PW
--------------enig874CD352DC13EF5A1CC82158
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.16 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAk6EM/wACgkQ8Mjk52CukIwJtgCeJRIUjFnuWWciKP4HMcclL72n
egMAnAyxwVyvjOTTxjJfSKVgzXu0lMYK
=XUa7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--------------enig874CD352DC13EF5A1CC82158--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4E8433F5.30005>