From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Feb 25 22:27:58 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 99437FD5; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 22:27:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from shepard.synsport.net (mail.synsport.com [208.69.230.148]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2FA231276; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 22:27:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.35] (159.Red-79-159-228.staticIP.rima-tde.net [79.159.228.159]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by shepard.synsport.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3471438EB; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 16:27:45 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <530D18DE.6020003@marino.st> Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 23:27:42 +0100 From: John Marino User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "A.J. 'Fonz' van Werven" , Baptiste Daroussin Subject: Re: Support for pkg_* References: <530C5793.2070208@heuristicsystems.com.au> <20140225141144.GA87810@spectrum.skysmurf.nl> <20140225163457.GI83610@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> <20140225220844.GA92169@spectrum.skysmurf.nl> In-Reply-To: <20140225220844.GA92169@spectrum.skysmurf.nl> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "freebsd-ports@freebsd.org" , Dewayne Geraghty X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list Reply-To: marino@freebsd.org List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 22:27:58 -0000 On 2/25/2014 23:08, A.J. 'Fonz' van Werven wrote: > Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > >> Can we stop advertising the above, this is completly wrong, it hides the >> dust behind the carpet and won't fix anything! >> >> The said port is needed a fix. > > Granted: it's not staging itself that is the problem, it's incorrect usage > thereof. But anyone possessing even the tiniest trace amount of realism > will have to concede that port maintainers do occasionally get it wrong. > And when they do the errors as reported by the OP are a tell-tale symptom. No one should have a problem conceding that. The issue is that it seems that many ports are staged without checking in redports / poudriere or otherwise. I was even guilty of this the other day. I was on the road and I created two new ports that easily passed with DEVELOPER_MODE. Neither built in clean environment though and I got rewarded with pkg-fallout messages. A lot of stuff gets committed that it's clear was never remotely tested, not even with portlint. But don't blame the tools -- the port needs to be fixed. I agree that we should never advise "NO_STAGE=yes", ever. If the port is broken, so be it. PR, patch, normal process. There's been a lot of understandable grumbling due to growing pains of major infrastructure changes by users, so telling users to revert these changes isn't a good look. Let's just try to get the port fixed in a reasonable timeframe (e.g. get the guy that broke it to take care of it). John