Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2013 13:48:52 +0000 (UTC) From: "Ganael LAPLANCHE" <ganael.laplanche@martymac.org> To: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org>,Eitan Adler <eadler@freebsd.org> Cc: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, Ganael LAPLANCHE <martymac@freebsd.org>, ports-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r316102 - in head/emulators/dolphin-emu-devel: . files Message-ID: <20130420133158.M15119@martymac.org> In-Reply-To: <20130420051737.GA23612@FreeBSD.org> References: <201304191335.r3JDZF4B031649@svn.freebsd.org> <20130419134935.GA29457@FreeBSD.org> <20130419150333.M65185@FreeBSD.org> <CAF6rxgme6zpAs9gB3oNcoNupFVSMRYTAoZxhbJPkNHD3gKEH1A@mail.gmail.com> <20130420051737.GA23612@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 05:17:37 +0000, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote
Hi Alexey, Eitan,
> > No.
> >
> > ONLY_FOR_* means that the port is *never intended* to work on any
> > other platform. BROKEN ports are, in theory, periodically tested.
>
> Exactly. I only mentioned ONLY_FOR_ARCHS to illustrate that
> "i386-specific option" is overly vague even to tell BROKEN
> from ONLY_FOR_ARCHS, which are very different beasts, and
> should not be confused.
Thanks for the reminder ! Of course, ONLY_FOR_ARCHS won't fit here.
Then, I see three possibilities :
1) Fix the BROKEN message with something more incentive, like just :
.if ${ARCH} == "powerpc"
BROKEN= Not tested on powerpc
.endif
but I don't find this solution very clean as, after all, I have not
tested other tier-2 architectures, so why just put a message for powerpc ?
2) I could rewrite it this way :
.if ${ARCH} != "i386" && ${ARCH} != "amd64"
BROKEN= Only tested on i386 and amd64
.endif
a kind of ONLY_FOR_ARCHS that will allow package building to be tried
anyway from time to time.
3) As I don't know exactly why this BROKEN message has been introduced
and whether the port now builds or not on powerpc and other tier-2 archs
(I don't have hardware to test it), just remove the BROKEN message and
let the port live its life.
I would go for 2) as it seems the cleanest way to solve that problem.
Does that seem good to you ?
Best regards,
--
Ganael LAPLANCHE <ganael.laplanche@martymac.org>
http://www.martymac.org | http://contribs.martymac.org
FreeBSD: martymac <martymac@FreeBSD.org>, http://www.FreeBSD.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20130420133158.M15119>