From owner-freebsd-ports Tue Nov 27 7:49:32 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from white.imgsrc.co.jp (ns.imgsrc.co.jp [210.226.20.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A541337B416; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 07:49:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from black.imgsrc.co.jp (black.imgsrc.co.jp [2001:218:422:2:290:27ff:fe98:c0b7]) by white.imgsrc.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9599024D32; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 00:49:21 +0900 (JST) Received: from waterblue.imgsrc.co.jp (waterblue.imgsrc.co.jp [2001:218:422:2:2d0:b7ff:fea0:d487]) by black.imgsrc.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D13BD1405; Wed, 28 Nov 2001 00:49:19 +0900 (JST) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 00:49:15 +0900 Message-ID: <7mr8qk6wp0.wl@waterblue.imgsrc.co.jp> From: Jun Kuriyama To: portmgr@FreeBSD.org Cc: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/Mk bsd.port.mk In-Reply-To: <3C0353A9.A163A1C2@FreeBSD.org> References: <200111131312.fADDCC911711@freefall.freebsd.org> <20011114014833.A17257@exxodus.fedaykin.here> <20011113225250.I17600@casimir.physics.purdue.edu> <3BF40798.7F66C0DD@FreeBSD.org> <20011115230018.A2836@exxodus.fedaykin.here> <7mitc1c0ld.wl@waterblue.imgsrc.co.jp> <3C0353A9.A163A1C2@FreeBSD.org> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.6.0 (Twist And Shout) SEMI/1.14.3 (Ushinoya) FLIM/1.14.3 (=?ISO-8859-4?Q?Unebigory=F2mae?=) APEL/10.3 Emacs/21.1 (i386--freebsd) MULE/5.0 (=?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCOC1MWhsoQg==?=) MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.3 - "Ushinoya") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org At Tue, 27 Nov 2001 10:49:45 +0200, Maxim Sobolev wrote: > > # I think we should use USE_AUTOMAKE_VER?=15 and > > # undef(USE_AUTOCONF_VER) as default. We can collect feedback whether > > # each port can be built with new auto{make,conf} suite. If some > > # ports cannot be built with new ones, mark it as > > # USE_AUTO{CONF,MAKE}_VER explicitly. > > I think more practical approach is to do one test build on bento with > automake15 turned on by default and see which ports will break. We are > getting very close to obtaining root on bento cluster, so this could > be done relatevely soon. Yes, I understand you (portmgr team) are too busy. But bento issue is answered as "soon" many times. Why do you (portmgr team) *do* everything yourself? IMHO, portmgr should *manage* the Ports Collection, should not *do* everything by theirselves. As knu said, we have an automated bento cluster. We can easily test new auto{conf,make} suite by changing default in bsd.port.mk. I think we have enough time for testing by this method before you really get root privilege. We also have large number of ports users in ports@FreeBSD.org. If we change default of auto{conf,make} suite, I believe we can get many feedbacks from them. Please relax and don't take the heavy responsibility upon yourselves only. We have many developers, and let's use this resource. -- Jun Kuriyama // IMG SRC, Inc. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message