Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 21:21:35 -0700 From: bmah@freebsd.org (Bruce A. Mah) To: Wilko Bulte <wkb@freebie.xs4all.nl> Cc: "Bruce A. Mah" <bmah@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD hackers list <FreeBSD-hackers@freebsd.org>, nik@freebsd.org Subject: Re: building 'release' and compiling doc ports Message-ID: <200108260421.f7Q4LZK84037@intruder.bmah.org> In-Reply-To: <20010825174208.A1269@freebie.xs4all.nl> References: <20010824174016.A45724@freebie.xs4all.nl> <200108241605.f7OG5GW49491@intruder.bmah.org> <20010824190806.A46103@freebie.xs4all.nl> <200108241725.f7OHPfB50419@intruder.bmah.org> <20010824194405.A46482@freebie.xs4all.nl> <200108241752.f7OHqox51679@intruder.bmah.org> <20010825001408.B47203@freebie.xs4all.nl> <200108242311.f7ONBIt56794@intruder.bmah.org> <20010825083659.A51201@freebie.xs4all.nl> <200108251457.f7PEvVW45896@intruder.bmah.org> <20010825174208.A1269@freebie.xs4all.nl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --]
If memory serves me right, Wilko Bulte wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 25, 2001 at 07:57:31AM -0700, Bruce A. Mah wrote:
> > Oh heck. Alphas build docs with openjade, not jade. We forgot to deal
> > with that in the definition of ${MINIMALDOCPORTS}, so release builds
> > containing docs but not a ports tree will break on the Alpha.
>
> Not knowing much, if anything (ok, it is a green stone, I saw plenty
> of Chines jade artwork while in Macau) about jade: why is the alpha
> different from x86 in this respect?
Haven't been to Macau...but there's lots of jade in Hong Kong too. :-)
> Meaning: why not use common tools? [my ignorance around the docproj
> stuff is showing here]
openjade is a descendent of jade (I don't think jade is being developed
anymore). For some reason, jade has some problems running on the Alpha.
I asked nik once why we don't just use openjade for everything...I think
the answer was that there were some issues with languages using
multi-byte characters. Personally, I run openjade on most of my i386
boxes (it's an option for that architecture).
(These things are SGML parsers, BTW. That's about the extent of my
knowledge.)
> > OK. Can you apply the following patch to Makefile.inc.docports? It's
> > against HEAD but it should apply equally well to RELENG4 because the
> > files (modulo CVS strings) are identical.
[...time passes...report of apparent success...]
Yay! OK, I'll commit this "soon" (kind of brain-dead right now, don't
trust myself to do commits properly). If you get to it first, that's
fine too.
> > No...we just forgot this aspect of the Alpha docs build. People who
> > build releases with full ports should be fine.
>
> You forgot the :-).. building all ports will take aeons (I suspect;
> I would be surprised if it didnot)
No...I just meant building the ports tree itself, not all of the
packages. In other words, if you don't set "NOPORTS=YES", a complete
ports tree gets checked out and tarred up for the distribution. The
docproj ports get built out out of this ports tree, so the definition
of ${MINIMALDOCPORTS} is moot. If you set "NOPORTS=YES", then only the
ports in ${MINIMALDOCPORTS} get checked out of the repo, and that's
where you (we?) got bitten.
Bruce.
[-- Attachment #2 --]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (FreeBSD)
Comment: Exmh version 2.3.1+ 05/14/2001
iD8DBQE7iHlO2MoxcVugUsMRAp9PAKCoO4rFy12HVsmR5JeC+rVPg7aj5wCgrg9r
rFtZVlxaF8N3JYkWxhiDErA=
=TI9J
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200108260421.f7Q4LZK84037>