Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 19:31:17 -0800 From: Ade Lovett <ade@FreeBSD.org> To: Jean-Yves Lefort <jylefort@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org>, freebsd ports <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>, Ade Lovett <ade@FreeBSD.org>, Kent Stewart <kstewart@owt.com> Subject: Re: Ports 104877 causing big problems Message-ID: <8E182699-3175-447C-92EF-B6F0E84B4244@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20070310033000.c9d2a66f.jylefort@FreeBSD.org> References: <45F1DDE2.5030404@FreeBSD.org> <BE66AB56-E0B4-420A-910D-9C10DB9AF24D@FreeBSD.org> <45F1EA6A.6070904@FreeBSD.org> <FB399CF7-11E2-4CC9-8C91-7D6850B7B2D8@FreeBSD.org> <20070310023034.c5939c48.jylefort@FreeBSD.org> <7CF1749C-3254-46AC-ABDD-BAB0D84ED7A1@FreeBSD.org> <20070310033000.c9d2a66f.jylefort@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
-----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-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?8E182699-3175-447C-92EF-B6F0E84B4244>