Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 19:23:20 -0600 From: Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com> To: Jan Beich <jbeich@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Mathieu Arnold <mat@FreeBSD.org>, Mark Linimon <linimon@FreeBSD.org>, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r456719 - in head: biology/bedtools comms/gnuradio editors/libreoffice emulators/stella games/armagetron graphics/gsculpt net/linknx net/rsplib science/afni security/botan2 security/hig... Message-ID: <20171220012320.GA28486@lonesome.com> In-Reply-To: <bmiu-jjv4-wny@FreeBSD.org> References: <201712191441.vBJEfTLf054114@repo.freebsd.org> <8tdy-a671-wny@FreeBSD.org> <7ae87444-6657-7506-f987-14ec50f648f6@FreeBSD.org> <bmiu-jjv4-wny@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Let me address the overall concerns first, and then give my personal opinions. Now that I've finished a sweep through all the aarch64 errorlogs, I intend to go through things one-at-a-time to catch the cases I've missed. In particular, it seems some things should be labeled "newer clang error" than "aarch64 error." It's sometimes hard to tell at first glance. I will probably wait until the results are in from my armv6 -trybroken run here at the house to do so. (I have also been going through the armv6 errorlogs, and doing preliminary armv7 runs, also with -trybroken). My personal theory is that if I'm going to be looking at hundreds if not thousands of errorlogs, I'm going to miss things. And yes, I assert that I have gone over more than a thousand errorlogs this year, if you count all the tier-2s on various buildenvs. When I started looking at arm* last year, we had nearly a thousand failed ports indicated on poudriere, that merely showed as "build error". We were building these ports on the cluster over and over again, pointlessly. Soon we won't be. Soon, anyone(TM) can go to the poudriere result pages and browse the Ignored section and quickly see what the errors are. I am sure that a little work on data reduction will show common errors that may be more easily fixed in groups. It's more than one person's (e.g. myself's) worth of work. But the intention is to get us to the point where most of the ports on tier-2 "Just Work". I need a lot of collaborators. I see what I've been doing as necessary brute-force work to get armv6 (really, should be armv7) and aarch64 up to near-parity with amd64, so that we can then open up the question of "are these archs tier-1, and if so, do we expect maintainers to fix PRs filed against these archs." That policy decision, and the related question of "what resources do we provide to maintainers if they don't have them", is a portmgr decision. When I left portmgr it was entirely to a) no longer be involved in such decisions and b) avoid the continual, prolonged, drama and meta-discussions. And by the latter, I *specifically* mean this thread, and the dozens of similar ones that have preceded it over the years. And those last two paragraphs are about all I am going to say about my own opinions on the matter. tl;dr: yeah, I've broken some eggs, but I'm trying to make an omelette. mcl
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20171220012320.GA28486>