From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Feb  2 05:19:21 2012
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: ports@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7E40106566B
	for <ports@freebsd.org>; Thu,  2 Feb 2012 05:19:21 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from linimon@lonesome.com)
Received: from mail.soaustin.net (pancho.soaustin.net [76.74.250.40])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABBF58FC23
	for <ports@freebsd.org>; Thu,  2 Feb 2012 05:19:21 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail.soaustin.net (Postfix, from userid 502)
	id 20CAD6001; Wed,  1 Feb 2012 23:19:21 -0600 (CST)
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 23:19:21 -0600
From: Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com>
To: Michael Scheidell <michael.scheidell@secnap.com>
Message-ID: <20120202051921.GC6434@lonesome.com>
References: <4F296566.805@secnap.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4F296566.805@secnap.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Cc: ports@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: not for arch? use arch? don't care arch?
X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD <freebsd-ports.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2012 05:19:21 -0000

On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 11:16:38AM -0500, Michael Scheidell wrote:
> "The ChangeLog mentioned some sparc64 fixes, so it's worth giving it a
> try again, but the port depends on boost-libs now which is marked as
> broken on sparc64, so it cannot actually be tested."
> 
> So, how do you want me to handle this?

I'd say leave out the following stanza, and also leave out ONLY_FOR/
NOT_FOR_ARCHS:

> -.if ${ARCH} == "sparc64"
> -BROKEN= Does not compile on sparc64
> -.endif

That way, if someone happens to fix boost on sparc64, pointyhat will
still try to build the dependent port, and we'll find out if it builds
or not.  Otherwise, everyone will probably forget about it and it will
never be tried.

(Builds of ports which are dependent on broken ports are not attempted
by pointyhat in any case.)

mcl