Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 06:46:24 -0500 From: Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com> To: Erwin Lansing <erwin@FreeBSD.org> Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: .if ARCH / BROKEN, or 'NOT_FOR_ARCH'? Message-ID: <20120410114624.GA2456@lonesome.com> In-Reply-To: <20120410091619.GS66606@droso.net> References: <4F83F893.7040500@FreeBSD.org> <20120410091619.GS66606@droso.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 11:16:19AM +0200, Erwin Lansing wrote: > BROKEN is for less permanent or unknown breakage, like errors on pointyhat > where the one analyzing the logs doesn't have detailed knownledge of each > port and its breakage, and is used as a warning to users, so they don't try > to build a port and get disappointed after installing all its dependencies, > and as a message to the maintainer that something is wrong. As a further clarification, we have a switch that we can throw on pointyhat to try to build things with BROKEN: '-trybroken'. We don't often do this, but should probably start doing so more often now that we have the hardware. Once something is marked with ARCHS it will not be attempted on pointyhat no matter what. mcl
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120410114624.GA2456>