From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Mar 10 02:30:04 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA5B216A40B; Sat, 10 Mar 2007 02:30:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jylefort@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mirapoint7.brutele.be (mirapoint7.brutele.be [212.68.199.151]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31FCA13C4A5; Sat, 10 Mar 2007 02:30:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jylefort@FreeBSD.org) Received: from host-212-68-244-81.brutele.be (host-212-68-244-81.brutele.be [212.68.244.81]) by mirapoint7.brutele.be (MOS 3.7.5a-GA) with ESMTP id ADP87861; Sat, 10 Mar 2007 03:30:02 +0100 (CET) Received: from jsite.lefort.net (jsite.lefort.net [192.168.1.2]) by gateway.lefort.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC92554F3; Sat, 10 Mar 2007 03:30:01 +0100 (CET) Received: from jsite.lefort.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jsite.lefort.net (Postfix) with SMTP id E6D312D; Sat, 10 Mar 2007 03:30:00 +0100 (CET) Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 03:30:00 +0100 From: Jean-Yves Lefort To: Ade Lovett Message-Id: <20070310033000.c9d2a66f.jylefort@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <7CF1749C-3254-46AC-ABDD-BAB0D84ED7A1@FreeBSD.org> References: <45F1DDE2.5030404@FreeBSD.org> <45F1EA6A.6070904@FreeBSD.org> <20070310023034.c5939c48.jylefort@FreeBSD.org> <7CF1749C-3254-46AC-ABDD-BAB0D84ED7A1@FreeBSD.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed running on FreeBSD Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="PGP-SHA1"; boundary="Signature=_Sat__10_Mar_2007_03_30_00_+0100_il3vcOV0nxawcJw0" X-Junkmail-Status: score=10/50, host=mirapoint7.brutele.be X-Junkmail-SD-Raw: score=unknown, refid=str=0001.0A09020A.45F2182A.00B7,ss=1,fgs=0, ip=212.68.244.81, so=2006-05-09 23:27:51, dmn=5.2.125/2007-01-26 Cc: Doug Barton , Kent Stewart , freebsd ports Subject: Re: Ports 104877 causing big problems X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 02:30:05 -0000 --Signature=_Sat__10_Mar_2007_03_30_00_+0100_il3vcOV0nxawcJw0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 17:56:52 -0800 Ade Lovett wrote: > On Mar 09, 2007, at 17:30 , Jean-Yves Lefort wrote: > > > On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 17:05:31 -0800 > > Ade Lovett wrote: > >> 3. Ports that *are* affected by this issue (assuming the issue still > >> exists) can be fixed in a more relaxed manner (eg: a conversion of > >> GNU_CONFIGURE=YES to USE_AUTOTOOLS=configurehack [implying > >> GNU_CONFIGURE=YES]) than a time-T switch. It will also allow for > >> such affected ports to have PORTREVISIONs bumped by the respective > >> maintainers so as to more clearly identify improved operation to the > >> consumers of those ports. > > > > All ports that use libtool to produce a program or shared library are > > affected by this issue. > > This in turn implies that in case that there is an issue, and > something needs to be done about it, then silently changing the > semantics of GNU_CONFIGURE is not an appropriate solution. In order > for the change, should it be required, to be communicated to all the > consumers of the FreeBSD ports tree, and not that subset that happens > to read esoteric discussions on a high volume mailing list, this > requires that we use the tools available to us, ie: bumping > PORTREVISION. > > 1. Identify if there is still a problem. I told you there is one. You've been making a fool of yourself by demonstrating that you do not understand the problem, and yet you assume everything I say is wrong? > 2a. If not, get on with something more productive. > 2b. If yes, add a new stanza to USE_AUTOTOOLS, for simplicities sake > we'll call it lthack, which defines GNU_CONFIGURE, and also wanders > through the configuration files performing the appropriate hackery. > > 3. Maintainers that have ports affected by the issue go in to the > Makefile, chunk GNU_CONFIGURE, add USE_AUTOTOOLS= lthack, bump > PORTREVISION, and move on to the next one. > > The semantics of GNU_CONFIGURE itself don't change, so no chance of > unintended infra-structural breakdown, full-tree operations are not > adversely impacted by needlessly including additional Mk/bsd.*.mk > files, and the update is limited to those consumers of the new > USE_AUTOTOOLS stanza, without touching bsd.port.mk, thus not > requiring a full -exp run. A rather more elegant solution than > sledgehammer blows which, whilst occasionally needed, soak up huge > amounts of resource, and are to be avoided if at all possible. That's right, thousands of commits are more elegant, practical, and faster than a single commit and a test run. -- Jean-Yves Lefort jylefort@FreeBSD.org http://lefort.be.eu.org/ --Signature=_Sat__10_Mar_2007_03_30_00_+0100_il3vcOV0nxawcJw0 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFF8hgoyzD7UaO4AGoRAiDKAJ4+mpxjq1IVUF1qF+RyE01I4Ck4mACfV+bi oDkyE9mLUz6er83DGfCvFPE= =DAGN -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Signature=_Sat__10_Mar_2007_03_30_00_+0100_il3vcOV0nxawcJw0--