Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2015 15:38:56 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> To: Bryan Drewery <bdrewery@FreeBSD.org> Cc: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, Dmitry Marakasov <amdmi3@amdmi3.ru>, ports-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r383191 - head/Mk Message-ID: <20150409153856.GA31951@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <55269785.7030307@FreeBSD.org> References: <201504040535.t345ZJ9M028396@svn.freebsd.org> <20150408194202.GA45809@hades.panopticon> <5525A9C1.5010003@FreeBSD.org> <20150408232144.GX21982@hades.panopticon> <5525D48E.5090305@FreeBSD.org> <20150409110221.GB45809@hades.panopticon> <55269785.7030307@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 10:15:17AM -0500, Bryan Drewery wrote: > *That* made sense. Frankly I think all dev warnings should be disabled > in that case though. Setting up ports like this may work but it is not a > good way to test a port before committing or submitting it. Many ports > and their framework files reference "CURDIR/../..". In r327743 I > modified www/linux-seamonkey to use PORTSDIR here and I believe I broke > the workflow for the maintainers testing. The ports tree really needs to > be tested as a whole. This is why portshaker exists, so you can bring in > your partial tree into a full tree. Unionfs in theory is for this too. Bryan, I'm on Dmitry's side here. Building some "foo" port from outside /usr/ports (or a properly checked out tree) is very handy feature, and it had worked for many years; and while perhaps never officially advertised, silently breaking it is a huge POLA violation for power users. I would really appreciate if we can have this behavior back. On a related noted, I'm generally getting more and more concerned that the tree becomes primarily chroot/jail building-oriented. Example: I'm personally heavily relying on ability to set OSVERSION to arbitrary value on per-port basis; it is very helpful to test the logic of some complicated port (e.g. x11/nvidia-driver) to make sure you got all these checks right. Now since r369644 (also by you) I have to comment that harness code from Mk/bsd.port.mk out. I was actually surprised that I have to do it, since log message talks only about "OSVERSION or UNAME_r is improperly set when building in a jail/chroot", but in reality I cannot do a "make OSVERSION=xxx" even when building locally. I'd also appreciate if you could change the code so it works as described (i.e. for jail/chroot-environments, bulk package builders, tinderbox/p*re, et al.), but not for /usr/ports, thank you. ./danfe
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20150409153856.GA31951>