From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Sep 29 09:47:34 2011
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D123E106566B
	for <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>; Thu, 29 Sep 2011 09:47:34 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from erwin@mail.droso.net)
Received: from mail.droso.net (grizzly.droso.net [IPv6:2a01:4f8:100:9424::3])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7745D8FC0A
	for <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>; Thu, 29 Sep 2011 09:47:34 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail.droso.net (Postfix, from userid 1001)
	id 873BC72E00; Thu, 29 Sep 2011 11:47:33 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 11:47:33 +0200
From: Erwin Lansing <erwin@FreeBSD.org>
To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Message-ID: <20110929094733.GS5495@droso.net>
References: <20110929084725.GN91943@hoeg.nl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20110929084725.GN91943@hoeg.nl>
X-Operating-System: FreeBSD/amd64 8.2-RELEASE
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Subject: Re: Instafix for FreeBSD ports brokenness on 10.0?
X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD <freebsd-ports.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 09:47:34 -0000

On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 10:47:25AM +0200, Ed Schouten wrote:
> Hi folks,
> 
> Why can't we simply fix the entire ports tree at once by doing something
> like this?
> 
If we're not going to fiddle with auto* so close to a release date, we
certainly are not going to fiddle with the whole ports infrastructure
that affects even more ports, especially not for a workaround that only
affects CURRENT users.  Ports on CURRENT is only provided on a best
effort basis and its users are expected to be techically savvy enough to
work around these kinds of issues themselves.

We can always use more eyes on 9.0-BETA3 and as HEAD hasn't diverged
that much, it would be nice if people installed the beta and reported
any bugs found there.

Erwin

-- 
Erwin Lansing                                   http://droso.org
Prediction is very difficult
especially about the future                    erwin@FreeBSD.org