From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Mar 10 03:31:19 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 ABD8716A400; Sat, 10 Mar 2007 03:31:19 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ade@lovett.com) Received: from mail.lovett.com (foo.lovett.com [67.134.38.158]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85C0813C441; Sat, 10 Mar 2007 03:31:19 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ade@lovett.com) Received: from hellfire.canal.lovett.com ([172.16.32.20]:52472) by mail.lovett.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.66 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1HPsIr-000FFO-9H; Fri, 09 Mar 2007 19:31:29 -0800 In-Reply-To: <20070310033000.c9d2a66f.jylefort@FreeBSD.org> References: <45F1DDE2.5030404@FreeBSD.org> <45F1EA6A.6070904@FreeBSD.org> <20070310023034.c5939c48.jylefort@FreeBSD.org> <7CF1749C-3254-46AC-ABDD-BAB0D84ED7A1@FreeBSD.org> <20070310033000.c9d2a66f.jylefort@FreeBSD.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <8E182699-3175-447C-92EF-B6F0E84B4244@FreeBSD.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Ade Lovett Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 19:31:17 -0800 To: Jean-Yves Lefort X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 1.1.2 (Tiger) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.2) Sender: ade@lovett.com Cc: Doug Barton , freebsd ports , Ade Lovett , Kent Stewart 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 03:31:19 -0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Mar 09, 2007, at 18:30 , Jean-Yves Lefort wrote: > I told you there is one. You have stated there to be a problem. I am still waiting for quantifiable evidence. I have not received any so far. > That's right, thousands of commits are more elegant, practical, and > faster than a single commit and a test run. There are two separate issues. First, the (possible) fix to the autotools infrastructure which will be done in an appropriate manner, and without violating POLA. The patch in ports/104877 *may* address part of this, but definitely violates POLA by changing the semantics of GNU_CONFIGURE (thus requiring a poke to bsd.port.mk) which will likely result in non-deterministic breakage. The second is for port maintainers of affected ports to utilize the mechanisms provided in step one (if such a step is required), and communicate that fact to folks that use their ports by also bumping PORTREVISION. Of course, if someone (you?) wants to do the leg-work in updating those ports in one go, working with hundreds of distinct port maintainers, dealing with the fallout, shepherding the -exp runs (yes, multiple will be required), by all means go for it. The only relationship that step 2 has to step 1 is that step 1 is a pre- requisite. No more, no less. - -aDe -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin) iD8DBQFF8iaGpXS8U0IvffwRAveBAJ9TQTXqMSLZBOpFag2Y6ecjMphCEgCfXHnJ R3lKLigVZ9tFY0HTBX516gY= =Qlih -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----