Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2010 22:19:19 +0100 From: David Southwell <david@vizion2000.net> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Cc: Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy@acm.org> Subject: Re: ptlib build failure - breaks pwlib - hence also asterisk - opal - & openh323 Message-ID: <201009262219.19465.david@vizion2000.net> In-Reply-To: <20100924233432.GE49476@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> References: <201009201028.38559.david@vizion2000.net> <20100923122251.3a70f4ab@seibercom.net> <20100924233432.GE49476@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On 2010-Sep-23 12:22:51 -0400, Jerry <freebsd-ports.user@seibercom.net> wrote: > >A few months ago, after upgrading to version 8/amd64 and installing > >OpenSSL from ports, I had several ports bomb out when I attempted to > >build them. I filed PR's against them and contacted the maintainers. It > >appeared that the majority of these port maintainers were not even aware > >that their port would not build in the presents of OpenSSL when it was > >installed via the ports tree. In any case, I was able to get them to > >fix their ports to build correctly. > > So it sounds like everything worked as expected. I fail to see any > deficiency in the way things worked. > > >What amazed me is that this is such a common occurrence that it should > >have been contemplated when the port was released. > > Why do you think that? It's quite likely that the port maintainers > didn't install OpenSSL from ports - I know I don't. > > > Perhaps the Porters > > > >Handbook should list ports that have a corresponding base system > >counterpart; thereby, alerting the maintainer that he/she should test > >against both versions to insure full compatibility. > > I disagree. I'd be surprised if any part of the base system _didn't_ > have one or more corresponding equivalents in ports. As well as > OpenSSL, there are 5 versions of gcc (and probably a half-dozen other > C compilers), binutils, 5 versions of bind (and several other DNS > implementations that presumably also implement resolver libraries), 3 > Kerberos variants, 2-4 versions of ncurses, readline, etc. Expecting > a ports maintainer to check that their port works with all of these on > 3 different FreeBSD branches and about 5 different architectures is > completely unrealistic. > > IMHO, the expectations on a port maintainer are that they verify that > the port works as expected in their environments (where any unusual > configurations are listed in the port dependencies) and at least > builds on all other supported branches/architectures (via tinderbox or > similar). Any issues beyond that realistically need to be dealt with > on a case-by-case basis. Frankly I have never heard such a load of inconsiderate thoughtlessness and denial of responsibility form anyone before. Installation of ssl from ports is part of a normal configuration. Mainainers need to take account of reality. David Photographic Artist Permanent Installations & Design Creative Imagery and Advanced Digital Techniques High Dynamic Range Photography & Official Portraiture Combined darkroom & digital creations & Systems Adminstrator for the vizion2000.net network
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201009262219.19465.david>