Date: Sat, 31 May 2014 11:29:14 -0700 From: Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> To: Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com> Cc: Guido Falsi <madpilot@FreeBSD.org>, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: please revert graphics/xfig r354029 Message-ID: <20140531182914.GA61533@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> In-Reply-To: <20140531173128.GA6980@lonesome.com> References: <20140531000800.GA57984@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <5389D9B6.8030005@FreeBSD.org> <20140531143509.GA60572@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <5389EE92.5070105@FreeBSD.org> <20140531150936.GA60696@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <20140531173128.GA6980@lonesome.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 12:31:28PM -0500, Mark Linimon wrote: > On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 08:09:36AM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote: > > I forgot I had the DOCS option unset as it was unset ages ago > > and updates have always worked. The question is "why are changes > > to a port committed without proper testing?" Yes, "proper > > testing" should include testing of the effects of (un)setting > > individual Makefile options. > > The number of combinations is huge. There are 3 options for graphics/xfig. It takes all of 5 minutes to build and install xfig on a 5 year old laptop. The options are mutually exclusive, so one needs to build and install the port 4 times (i.e., a whole 20 to 25 minutes). > > It's just not feasible. > I'm not advocating that portmgr should set up the testing on the FreeBSD cluster. The testing should be done by the individual maintainers. If s/he includes 3 (or 2 dozen) options in the Makefile, then s/he should test those options when s/he changes/updates the port. If it is too inconvenient or too labor intensive to test the options (i.e., 2 dozen options), then perhaps the options aren't too terribly important and should be removed. > Even if it were, we have 2042 ports PRs (171 or so are about staging), > and those ought to be our priorites IMHO. Yes, those should be the priorities. Hopefully, any change to a port (that addresses one of these PRs) is properly tested. -- Steve
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20140531182914.GA61533>