From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Sep 30 09:10:04 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6155106566C; Fri, 30 Sep 2011 09:10:04 +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 4FB608FC0A; Fri, 30 Sep 2011 09:10:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail.droso.net (Postfix, from userid 1001) id E490B723C2; Fri, 30 Sep 2011 11:10:02 +0200 (CEST) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 11:10:02 +0200 From: Erwin Lansing To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, ports@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20110930091002.GA1378@droso.net> References: <20110929084725.GN91943@hoeg.nl> <4E8433F5.30005@infracaninophile.co.uk> <20110929090743.GP91943@hoeg.nl> <20110929091859.GQ91943@hoeg.nl> <20110929134310.6585124d.stas@FreeBSD.org> <20110930084015.GV91943@hoeg.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Operating-System: FreeBSD/amd64 8.2-RELEASE-p3 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 09:10:04 -0000 On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 09:57:14AM +0100, Chris Rees wrote: > On 30 Sep 2011 09:41, "Ed Schouten" wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > * Stanislav Sedov , 20110929 22:43: > > > I think this is a good idea. > > > I recommend sending this to re@ and/or core@ for consideration. > > > Personally, I'd love to see this committed ASAP, as I'm unable > > > to do any ports work right now. > > > > I've poked portmgr@. :-) > > > > But portmgr has already replied... > Indeed and the answer hasn't changed. Ports on HEAD are only provided best effort, for regression testing etc, and users of HEAD are expected to be techincally savvy enough to work around potential problems themselves. Feel free to apply Ed's patch locally, but it won't make it into CVS. That said, this patch is the wrong place to fix a problem to autotools. It needs to be fixed in autotools, not bsd.port.mk. No matter if it's bsd.ports.mk or autotools, such a fix needs proper testing, for which we do not currently have the resources as we are concentrating on releasing 9.0. I would suggest you do the same and make 9.0 the best release possible during the next few weeks, after that we'll start looking into 10.0. Erwin -- Erwin Lansing http://droso.org Prediction is very difficult especially about the future erwin@FreeBSD.org