Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2004 16:36:32 -0400 From: Randy Pratt <rpratt1950@earthlink.net> To: Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Question about portlint WARN/FATAL errors Message-ID: <20040710163632.6ef6ec79.rpratt1950@earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: <200407101520.17278.linimon@lonesome.com> References: <20040710160201.77ab4eaa.rpratt1950@earthlink.net> <200407101520.17278.linimon@lonesome.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 15:20:17 -0500 Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com> wrote: > On Saturday 10 July 2004 03:02 pm, Randy Pratt wrote: > > I ran portlint on quite a few existing ports and was quite surprised > > at the amount of WARN and FATAL errors that existed. > > portlint is a heuristic tool. It is quite possible for it to report false > positives. Also, some ports do things in an "unapproved" way simply > to work around restrictions/bugs in bsd.*.mk. > > Having said that, there are a large number of ports that just have bugs. > The problem comes in determining which are which :-) > > mcl Okay, its not a problem for me, I was just a bit surprised by the number of them. Some time ago, I made a few local "ports" just to get a feel for how the port mechanisms worked and assumed that one of the objectives before submitting a port was to appease portlint. Just making a port of a simple C program gave me a whole new outlook on ports and an appreciation of how much work the ports gurus have to do to make all this Magic work ;-) Thanks for all the efforts everyone! Best regards, Randy --
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040710163632.6ef6ec79.rpratt1950>