From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Oct 29 14:54:50 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05EDB1065677 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2008 14:54:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from linimon@lonesome.com) Received: from mail.soaustin.net (lefty.soaustin.net [66.135.55.46]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDD628FC1B for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2008 14:54:49 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from linimon@lonesome.com) Received: by mail.soaustin.net (Postfix, from userid 502) id B8F738C0D1; Wed, 29 Oct 2008 09:35:51 -0500 (CDT) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 09:35:51 -0500 To: Scot Hetzel Message-ID: <20081029143551.GA6191@soaustin.net> References: <790a9fff0810290242m58012ac5r10bb761f65c97a1c@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <790a9fff0810290242m58012ac5r10bb761f65c97a1c@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) From: linimon@lonesome.com (Mark Linimon) Cc: ports@freebsd.org, "freebsd-questions@FreeBSD. ORG" , fbsd1@a1poweruser.com Subject: Re: ports missing their packages. X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 14:54:50 -0000 On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 04:42:18AM -0500, Scot Hetzel wrote: > So you are advocating that port maintainers have to create packages > for all the supported FreeBSD architecture's (amd64, arm, i386, ia64, > mips, pc98, powerpc, sparc64, sun4v). That would be 9 packages > needing to be created at the time the port maintainer submits the > upgrade PR. Nope, not 9 :-) You are forgetting FreeBSD 6, 7, and -current have builds enabled. OTOH, portmgr is only supporting amd64, i386, and sparc64 right now, and is not doing sparc64-8 due to lack of machines, so really the matrix is "only" 8. The ia64 package builds were stopped due to problems (and the fact that we only have 2 machines). There are no package building machines for the others yet -- and some of them ae really only going to be used for embedded systems, so only a very minimal subset of ports is going to be useful. So far, we've talked about addding machines for these, but there are no fixed plans so far. > It could be as simple as forgetting to add the ports subdirectory to > the category Makefile (i.e www/Makefile). Actually this is an uncommon problem; every time portmgr builds a package set, error messages are spit out if things are missing, and we are quick to email the maintainers :-) mcl