Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 23:49:15 -0500 From: Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com> To: Julian Elischer <julian@freebsd.org> Cc: "ports@FreeBSD.org" <ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: suggested patch for bsd.ports.mk Message-ID: <20160514044915.GA13340@lonesome.com> In-Reply-To: <3ce42b02-ac65-0322-b66d-5e5d198c9877@freebsd.org> References: <d857274b-908a-4873-1f81-ea99cb1fdbba@freebsd.org> <3ce42b02-ac65-0322-b66d-5e5d198c9877@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 11:25:08AM +0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
> so who or what decides if I can put this in?
portmgr. From the portmgr pages:
Changes to bsd.port.mk are not the only commits that can have a drastic
effect on the tree. We request that any such changes also be tested on
the cluster. Examples of such changes that should be tested before
committing include:
changes to packages with many dependencies, including X11 servers,
GNOME, KDE, gettext, autotools, and so forth
changes that change the "accepted best practice" for ports Makefiles,
such as definitions or usage of common make variables (or Makevars).
(e.g. consolidation of various implementations of USE_*, WITH_*, and
so forth)
large repocopies (such as when an existing port category is divided up)
If you are unsure of whether your proposed change will require a regression
test, please send email to portmgr@FreeBSD.org.
----------------
What this doesn't say is that, by convention, portmgr tests all changes to
bsd.port.mk on an experimental (exp-) run on the cluster. The motivation is
that many people auto-update their ports trees every day, and any breakage
generates immediatel, ah, feedback.
In general minor changes are piggybacked onto major changes during an exp-
run.
tl;dr: file a PR and assign to it portmgr@ under 'ports infrastructure'.
mcl
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20160514044915.GA13340>