From owner-freebsd-qa@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Mar 14 19:48:11 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-qa@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DB1D106564A for ; Sun, 14 Mar 2010 19:48:11 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from itetcu@FreeBSD.org) Received: from worf.ds9.tecnik93.com (worf.ds9.tecnik93.com [81.196.207.130]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 099238FC25 for ; Sun, 14 Mar 2010 19:48:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from it.buh.tecnik93.com (it.buh.tecnik93.com [81.196.204.98]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by worf.ds9.tecnik93.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4B83322C5093; Sun, 14 Mar 2010 21:28:55 +0200 (EET) Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2010 21:28:54 +0200 From: Ion-Mihai Tetcu To: chukharev@mail.ru Message-ID: <20100314212854.75f43763@it.buh.tecnik93.com> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.5 (GTK+ 2.18.7; amd64-portbld-freebsd8.0) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=PGP-SHA1; boundary="Sig_/gbUo/NsDQFq2L38SolejrZf"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Cc: "freebsd-qa@freebsd.org" Subject: Re: About ports QA by 'port test' X-BeenThere: freebsd-qa@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD Quality Assurance List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2010 19:48:11 -0000 --Sig_/gbUo/NsDQFq2L38SolejrZf Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 20:19:15 +0200 chukharev@mail.ru wrote: > Recently I've been trying to run some additional tests during updating > the ports I have installed on my computer. That means I select a > number of oldest installed ports (using dates of directories > in /var/db/pkg/), and for each of them run 'port > test' (ports-mgmt/porttools) and then 'portupgrade -f'. >=20 > FYI, the 'port test' uses portlint, builds in a different place, > installs into a different place, packages, then de-installs and > checks for left files. No jail, no chroot. >=20 > From what I have seen till now, about 25% of the ports do not pass > the test, either for fatal errors from portlint or due to errors > exhibited because of PREFIX and PKG_DBDIR variables. And this is done > only for the ports I have successfully installed on my system for > some reason not connected to the QA purposes. >=20 > I do not want to trouble the port maintainers with direct e-mails. >=20 > I've been posting the results (and the original description I'm > modifying now) to freebsd-qa@ for a while, but that turned out to be > of some burden and also I received there no feedback at all. > Therefore I set a webpage at my day-job where I will copy the results. > I hope I will not need to keep the site for long, if running 'port > test' is found useful, it should be added into QAT or tinderbox, I > think. Though without jail it is faster I guess. >=20 > The URL: http://kemia.me.tut.fi/~chu/FreeBSD.port_tests/ > Current statistics: >=20 > Ports having fatal errors: 109 (21 %) > Ports having warnings: 216 (43 %) > Ports without fatal errors: 391 (78 %) > Ports having warnings or fatal errors: 325 (65 %) > Totally tested ports: 500 I will take a look at your work the following days. > Additionally to the above stats, java/jdk16 is interactive and hangs > on input despite of BATCH=3Dyes in /etc/make.conf. Yes, I noticed this today.=20 --=20 IOnut - Un^d^dregistered ;) FreeBSD "user" "Intellectual Property" is nowhere near as valuable as "Intellect" FreeBSD committer -> itetcu@FreeBSD.org, PGP Key ID 057E9F8B493A297B --Sig_/gbUo/NsDQFq2L38SolejrZf Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAkudOPYACgkQJ7GIuiH/oeU92QCdEab38dY9DJLZ0xk404cEzDBu Y0YAn3tmyf4wM3/MauitRadbez25sD9L =+B+V -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/gbUo/NsDQFq2L38SolejrZf-- From owner-freebsd-qa@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Mar 14 21:57:39 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-qa@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C143106564A for ; Sun, 14 Mar 2010 21:57:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from yanefbsd@gmail.com) Received: from mail-pv0-f182.google.com (mail-pv0-f182.google.com [74.125.83.182]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 427808FC15 for ; Sun, 14 Mar 2010 21:57:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: by pva18 with SMTP id 18so179185pva.13 for ; Sun, 14 Mar 2010 14:57:38 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=I4kLbFeJ4faKdf08ht6WBHMuDX1UPBLmuOawYOtyn2o=; b=brHeT+isdNmT3XWO9UWY8FqiwLANOdLOIdP/pjPY31+14v9F32xJhdmZ3rGNkOgHBq b6Dnzqf1AAUGZvkzSVofHDjtnVgc7slcq9PEimOh76M4zHdSztkdxcwYNlWF/wJIfh/i pV4FkXr6pIeNVWO8nuj/wZmujEPxDD84espv0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=Gu2g1FGEKGiQVRegwsKvZUvCXMXrqz5a9mPYQc3lRUaPoyY/7fRkA/dnVfVnZEhVi3 u7x6S/nINcITysHB7/exbSvyHb10Xl3v13bSDBWGTXzLrtfIXG5CNb9aG5Al9Qtt++5R Ezn8HSputfwkFOkVH3fC94pctevhp2AGcYKlw= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.142.1.29 with SMTP id 29mr590917wfa.337.1268602502705; Sun, 14 Mar 2010 14:35:02 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2010 14:35:02 -0700 Message-ID: <7d6fde3d1003141435s70deaba7o2d61ae4187359471@mail.gmail.com> From: Garrett Cooper To: chukharev@mail.ru Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "freebsd-qa@freebsd.org" Subject: Re: About ports QA by 'port test' X-BeenThere: freebsd-qa@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD Quality Assurance List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2010 21:57:39 -0000 2010/3/8 : > Recently I've been trying to run some additional tests during updating > the ports I have installed on my computer. That means I select a number > of oldest installed ports (using dates of directories in /var/db/pkg/), > and for each of them run 'port test' (ports-mgmt/porttools) and then > 'portupgrade -f'. > > FYI, the 'port test' uses portlint, builds in a different place, installs > into a different place, packages, then de-installs and checks for left > files. No jail, no chroot. > > =A0From what I have seen till now, about 25% of the ports do not pass the > test, either for fatal errors from portlint or due to errors exhibited > because of PREFIX and PKG_DBDIR variables. And this is done only for > the ports I have successfully installed on my system for some reason > not connected to the QA purposes. > > I do not want to trouble the port maintainers with direct e-mails. > > I've been posting the results (and the original description I'm modifying > now) to freebsd-qa@ for a while, but that turned out to be of some burden > and also I received there no feedback at all. > Therefore I set a webpage at my day-job where I will copy the results. > I hope I will not need to keep the site for long, if running 'port test' > is found useful, it should be added into QAT or tinderbox, I think. Thoug= h > without jail it is faster I guess. > > The URL: http://kemia.me.tut.fi/~chu/FreeBSD.port_tests/ > Current statistics: If the host was reachable... > Ports having fatal errors: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 109 (21 %) > Ports having warnings: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 216 (43 %) > Ports without fatal errors: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0391 (78 %) > Ports having warnings or fatal errors: 325 (65 %) > Totally tested ports: =A0 =A0 =A0 500 > > Additionally to the above stats, java/jdk16 is interactive and hangs on > input > despite of BATCH=3Dyes in /etc/make.conf. Thanks, -Garrett From owner-freebsd-qa@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Mar 16 13:35:22 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-qa@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80AA0106564A for ; Tue, 16 Mar 2010 13:35:21 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from alexanderchuranov@gmail.com) Received: from mail-ew0-f228.google.com (mail-ew0-f228.google.com [209.85.219.228]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14BA58FC1A for ; Tue, 16 Mar 2010 13:35:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ewy28 with SMTP id 28so1310729ewy.33 for ; Tue, 16 Mar 2010 06:35:19 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=kUcofHFEatZ072wsBG+/TUiwf4XAuhZ8H8aUQ1kg3OE=; b=SPrdlEQWRWrdQ6kP+MVMWAFZrdLwaa4I/zgS0u1vjbJluMtUdMyvnsRglE2F/pkucK 4pHFHwWgtIzrSqHPXcs08A08KnDZVAt4Gb4MtpHeyv5z97h4niFCFSS8sPC6ip8Y2Nv8 2Ivfc2wSbaMWrEIiFCs/sxGkeY6BQVVt8zTOM= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=C0XDHGj+Z1z4VQpkKj9AyQsXqob2hs+3j+Jb0M47gZ5bnxQ4dhPc1YW1t3/91Sh8C5 MiCdNO5ijgI4+NN+PK3lT59jcO5kkjIbUmEx9yjtVeoCDCe8ackYPaEng0lLAiDWOgNR pZ2E/JREBE08EvAdsptgy/eEYiwTCY2dpmOQY= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.159.141 with SMTP id s13mr569147wek.64.1268744731782; Tue, 16 Mar 2010 06:05:31 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 16:05:31 +0300 Message-ID: <3cb459ed1003160605x2eb9fe76h28ba8bdc35f9f3c@mail.gmail.com> From: Alexander Churanov To: chukharev@mail.ru Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Cc: "freebsd-qa@freebsd.org" Subject: Re: About ports QA by 'port test' X-BeenThere: freebsd-qa@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD Quality Assurance List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 13:35:22 -0000 Vladimir and other folks, I've just looked at the logs for my ports. It's worth to notice that portlint gives just wrong results. For example, for devel/boost-jam it reports the following: FATAL: Makefile: PORTVERSION or DISTVERSION has to be there. (reported at http://kemia.me.tut.fi/~chu/FreeBSD.port_tests/devel/boost-jam/test.log) However, if you cd to /usr/ports/devel/boost-jam and type "make -V PORTVERSION", then make prints "1.41.0". The same with MAINTAINER and other variables reported as missing. So don't take the reports too seriously. It's just a reminder to double-check, not the facts. Alexander Churanov, maintainer of devel/boost-* From owner-freebsd-qa@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Mar 16 14:12:34 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-qa@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30556106564A for ; Tue, 16 Mar 2010 14:12:34 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from roam@ringlet.net) Received: from praag.hoster.bg (praag.hoster.bg [77.77.142.10]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E31D48FC15 for ; Tue, 16 Mar 2010 14:12:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from middenheim.hoster.bg (middenheim.hoster.bg [77.77.142.11]) by praag.hoster.bg (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91C4A8C8A8 for ; Tue, 16 Mar 2010 15:46:17 +0200 (EET) Received: from straylight.ringlet.net (office.hoster.bg [78.90.131.77]) (Authenticated sender: roam@hoster.bg) by mail.hoster.bg (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E11B5C3FB for ; Tue, 16 Mar 2010 15:46:14 +0200 (EET) Received: from roam (uid 1000) (envelope-from roam@ringlet.net) id 4161b8 by straylight.ringlet.net (DragonFly Mail Agent) Tue, 16 Mar 2010 15:46:07 +0200 Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 15:46:07 +0200 From: Peter Pentchev To: Alexander Churanov Message-ID: <20100316134607.GA3204@straylight.ringlet.net> Mail-Followup-To: Alexander Churanov , chukharev@mail.ru, "freebsd-qa@freebsd.org" References: <3cb459ed1003160605x2eb9fe76h28ba8bdc35f9f3c@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="+QahgC5+KEYLbs62" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3cb459ed1003160605x2eb9fe76h28ba8bdc35f9f3c@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-MailScanner-ID: 0E11B5C3FB.8713A X-hoster-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-hoster-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (cached, score=0.001, required 10, autolearn=disabled, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY 0.00) X-hoster-MailScanner-From: roam@ringlet.net X-hoster-MailScanner-To: freebsd-qa@freebsd.org X-Spam-Status: No Cc: chukharev@mail.ru, "freebsd-qa@freebsd.org" Subject: Re: About ports QA by 'port test' X-BeenThere: freebsd-qa@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD Quality Assurance List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 14:12:34 -0000 --+QahgC5+KEYLbs62 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 04:05:31PM +0300, Alexander Churanov wrote: > Vladimir and other folks, >=20 > I've just looked at the logs for my ports. It's worth to notice that > portlint gives just wrong results. For example, for devel/boost-jam it > reports the following: >=20 > FATAL: Makefile: PORTVERSION or DISTVERSION has to be there. >=20 > (reported at > http://kemia.me.tut.fi/~chu/FreeBSD.port_tests/devel/boost-jam/test.log) >=20 > However, if you cd to /usr/ports/devel/boost-jam and type "make -V > PORTVERSION", then make prints "1.41.0". The same with MAINTAINER and oth= er > variables reported as missing. >=20 > So don't take the reports too seriously. It's just a reminder to > double-check, not the facts. I wonder if portlint could grow some kind of "ignore these specific warnings and errors" capability, similar to lintian's override list in Debian. I'll have to think about it a bit - maybe the warnings and errors could have a tag, not just a free-text description. I'll think about it a bit longer and then possibly come up with a proposal of some kind, or maybe even prototype code :) G'luck, Peter --=20 Peter Pentchev roam@space.bg roam@ringlet.net roam@FreeBSD.org PGP key: http://people.FreeBSD.org/~roam/roam.key.asc Key fingerprint FDBA FD79 C26F 3C51 C95E DF9E ED18 B68D 1619 4553 --+QahgC5+KEYLbs62 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkufi5UACgkQ7Ri2jRYZRVMmCQCgrkMhD4TB7jEuVadlY2xzBJdl s4YAn1M4yY6PfuRe4pX3DUCJ1tHIvTOV =aqtA -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --+QahgC5+KEYLbs62-- From owner-freebsd-qa@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Mar 17 12:58:51 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-qa@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E5A11065673 for ; Wed, 17 Mar 2010 12:58:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from alexanderchuranov@gmail.com) Received: from mail-ew0-f226.google.com (mail-ew0-f226.google.com [209.85.219.226]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 935E08FC1A for ; Wed, 17 Mar 2010 12:58:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ewy26 with SMTP id 26so339255ewy.3 for ; Wed, 17 Mar 2010 05:58:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=65xJYqBzh6vTc4o0QSmMkEiyD7Lrn0XA0JghqsIwb7Y=; b=IxEDRvb3Qyoh9vpFbxAcwbsW94pCN70XLCiHmB98So852uSxBOXRrT2R36GNoDLBkR gjz+gCn2+OjMmxeXBGynrlgISiuKC1/O6iSuRvc+G2/s/Rc5ecQzUTrkGx6zL8EFcT0R XxSaKXw2HkMcFltH1fb0zI69eI6j+8lT2kzM0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=mUlfiYbP1DNoRvdbuJFSZDAc0VFk06wyDxqrN8+ot1m07b2E+FlP42TLM3a//C0nFD jIv+UhCNq3Vrb0gtDWOd4R49hFZb3nF2G1ibSTCxG83EUee4S9H1QTHxUCb6bs8TGBj5 814aKxsBpLE5x0xs3aWTe3HRYSl7XNwVWb9lA= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.213.109.143 with SMTP id j15mr787020ebp.84.1268830729422; Wed, 17 Mar 2010 05:58:49 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20100316134607.GA3204@straylight.ringlet.net> References: <3cb459ed1003160605x2eb9fe76h28ba8bdc35f9f3c@mail.gmail.com> <20100316134607.GA3204@straylight.ringlet.net> Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 15:58:49 +0300 Message-ID: <3cb459ed1003170558s45d0d7bcv96094f28efb68a24@mail.gmail.com> From: Alexander Churanov To: Alexander Churanov , chukharev@mail.ru, "freebsd-qa@freebsd.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Cc: Subject: Re: About ports QA by 'port test' X-BeenThere: freebsd-qa@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD Quality Assurance List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 12:58:51 -0000 Folks, If the portlint would be told to ignore errors like missing PORTVERSION, then how do you know whether the port is correct or not? >From my point of view, the issue is the portlint pretends to parse makefiles, but does not implement full make :-). For example, as far as I understand, the line 2188 just verifies that the file has a line starting with PORTVERSION. Portlint should use "make -V PORTVERSION" instead. Alexander Churanov, maintainer of devel/boost-* From owner-freebsd-qa@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Mar 19 21:07:36 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-qa@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDD981065672 for ; Fri, 19 Mar 2010 21:07:36 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from chukharev@mail.ru) Received: from mx34.mail.ru (mx34.mail.ru [94.100.176.48]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 850648FC1B for ; Fri, 19 Mar 2010 21:07:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [91.155.189.108] (port=60075 helo=vova-vaio) by mx34.mail.ru with asmtp id 1NsjPq-000PeJ-00 for freebsd-qa@freebsd.org; Sat, 20 Mar 2010 00:07:34 +0300 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r; format=flowed; delsp=yes In-Reply-To: <3cb459ed1003170558s45d0d7bcv96094f28efb68a24@mail.gmail.com> References: <3cb459ed1003160605x2eb9fe76h28ba8bdc35f9f3c@mail.gmail.com> <20100316134607.GA3204@straylight.ringlet.net> <3cb459ed1003170558s45d0d7bcv96094f28efb68a24@mail.gmail.com> To: freebsd-qa@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: chukharev@mail.ru Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 23:07:30 +0200 Message-ID: User-Agent: Opera Mail/10.10 (FreeBSD) X-Spam: Not detected X-Mras: Ok Subject: Re: About ports QA by 'port test' X-BeenThere: freebsd-qa@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD Quality Assurance List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 21:07:36 -0000 On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 14:58:49 +0200, Alexander Churanov wrote: > Folks, > > If the portlint would be told to ignore errors like missing PORTVERSION, > then how do you know whether the port is correct or not? > > From my point of view, the issue is the portlint pretends to parse > makefiles, but does not implement full make :-). For example, as far as I > understand, the line 2188 just verifies that the file has a line starting > with PORTVERSION. Portlint should use "make -V PORTVERSION" instead. It's true that portlint parses makefiles. But I believe its task is checking style, not implementing make. Correctness is checked by the next stage of the test. I have modified the script so that a FATAL error of portlint does not stop the test. One more file is used for results of portlint now. New results will come to the site as the test is run over the list of the installed ports. > Alexander Churanov, > maintainer of devel/boost-* devel/boost* have style of implementing related ports really different from recommended in FreeBSD Porter's Handbook section 5.8 MASTERDIR. So, the reason for complains from portlint is stylistic disagreement ;-) -- Vladimir Chukharev Tampere University of Technology