Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 22:03:26 -0500 (EST) From: Chuck Robey <chuckr@glue.umd.edu> To: Simon Shapiro <shimon@simon-shapiro.org> Cc: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG, "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> Subject: Re: Yest one more: devel/crosssco Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.980331215602.12625K-100000@localhost> In-Reply-To: <XFMail.980331152609.shimon@simon-shapiro.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 31 Mar 1998, Simon Shapiro wrote: > When I grew up, a program that dumps core was considered broken. Simon, I didn't say it was broken because it didn't dump core, I said your environment was broken for _building new ports_. You could expect far greater reliability if you only used packages, and didn't build on your system. > If gimp-devel breaks because gimp is installed, then the gimp-devel > dependency is that gimp CANNOT be installed. This IS within the scope of > FreeBSD ports. If this is not done, then either gimp or gimp-devel are > broken. It also tells me there is no way to build a complete ports as once > gimp is installed, gimp-devel will break. > > > It's not the port that's broken here, it's your test environment. If > > your being stubborn and saying that all ports should totally ignore > > their environment, well, this is not now and never has been true, but if > > you won't acknowldege it, I guess your next paragraph (regrettably) > > makes sense. > > I am not being stubborn. I am being inquisitive. You can tell me ``Thisis > what it is and that's it'' and I'll accept that. You can change the > documentation and specify that ports cannot be built by someone who does > not know and manipulate the contents of the packages, or you can say that > some packages are broken and you do not want to see it in the list. > I really do not care. > > Aside from telling me that my environment is broken, no one, except Dan, > suggested in which way it is broken. > > > For everyone else, ports _do_ work, within limitations. > > Within limitations they work here too. NOT ALL ports breake here. Most > build just fine. Well, I don't want to flog a dead horse, but ask people who port a lot, just how much care they have to take, so they don't pollute their environment. Another case in point: I used to have a link, /usr/X11 to /usr/X11R6. Things that worked just dandy on my system would break on other folks systems. I had to take that link out, else I wouldn't be aware of things that were broken in a port build. I just couldn't allow my system to be polluted. Heck, half the ports in the system will break, if you make one fairly common error (not making real sure you cleaned out the port completely before doing an additional test build). That's an embarrassing one which most of us have done once. If that happens, the port isn't broken, your build environment is. Systems that make use of the GNU configure scripts (and that's a great number) have to be aware of environment. ----------------------------+----------------------------------------------- Chuck Robey | Interests include any kind of voice or data chuckr@glue.umd.edu | communications topic, C programming, and Unix. 213 Lakeside Drive Apt T-1 | Greenbelt, MD 20770 | I run Journey2 and picnic, both FreeBSD (301) 220-2114 | version 3.0 current -- and great FUN! ----------------------------+----------------------------------------------- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.980331215602.12625K-100000>