From owner-svn-ports-all@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Jun 24 11:49:35 2014
Return-Path: <owner-svn-ports-all@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: svn-ports-all@freebsd.org
Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 1033)
 id 9559C86F; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 11:49:35 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 11:49:35 +0000
From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org>
To: Antoine Brodin <antoine@FreeBSD.org>
Subject: Re: svn commit: r358059 - head/audio/x11amp
Message-ID: <20140624114935.GA26372@FreeBSD.org>
References: <201406162246.s5GMklsu074568@svn.freebsd.org>
 <20140624111232.GA11118@FreeBSD.org>
 <CAALwa8=hE-ocFZCUU45uXUxHk-=Mh1cUz7ueS993r50pj2zG1Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <20140624113632.GA21948@FreeBSD.org>
 <CAALwa8kjaaDVbMXqjs1y=JOL_2jKCj+8tF_oR23KLjLFgc6M7w@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAALwa8kjaaDVbMXqjs1y=JOL_2jKCj+8tF_oR23KLjLFgc6M7w@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Cc: "svn-ports-head@freebsd.org" <svn-ports-head@freebsd.org>,
 "svn-ports-all@freebsd.org" <svn-ports-all@freebsd.org>,
 Dmitry Marakasov <amdmi3@freebsd.org>,
 "ports-committers@freebsd.org" <ports-committers@freebsd.org>
X-BeenThere: svn-ports-all@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18
Precedence: list
List-Id: SVN commit messages for the ports tree <svn-ports-all.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/svn-ports-all>,
 <mailto:svn-ports-all-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/svn-ports-all/>
List-Post: <mailto:svn-ports-all@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:svn-ports-all-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-ports-all>,
 <mailto:svn-ports-all-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 11:49:35 -0000

On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 01:39:55PM +0200, Antoine Brodin wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 1:36 PM, Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@freebsd.org> wrote:
> > What does "hangs at start" mean?  x11amp is invoked during the build for
> > some sanity testing?
> >
> > If the build goes fine (without error), it should be IGNORE, not BROKEN.
> 
> I disagree,  if a port build but doesn't run,  it must not be hidden
> behind IGNORE and must be marked BROKEN.

I see your reasoning; perhaps you'd want to update PHB, particularly section
12.13.1, so people won't be confused?  Right now you somewhat contradict it.

./danfe