Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2015 19:49:26 +0300 From: Dmitry Marakasov <amdmi3@amdmi3.ru> To: Bryan Drewery <bdrewery@FreeBSD.org> Cc: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org>, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r383191 - head/Mk Message-ID: <20150409164926.GC45809@hades.panopticon> In-Reply-To: <55269FE4.2030208@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> <20150409153856.GA31951@FreeBSD.org> <55269FE4.2030208@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Bryan Drewery (bdrewery@FreeBSD.org) 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. > > I am in favor of fixing it. I just think all the tests should be > disabled. It won't make sense to have some tests enabled and some not. > It's no good if the port passes in your out-of-tree build for 1/2 the > tests and then you just straight commit and find that it fails all of > the other tests. I don't see the point. Why disable all checks while they can detect problems early (while the port is still out-of-tree), instead of making developer experience inconsistent behavior without explanation? In either case, we need something like WARNING+="the port doesn't reside in the ports tree directory structure, not all sanity checks could be performed" but I'd really prefer only tests which are ctually affected by this to be disabled. -- Dmitry Marakasov . 55B5 0596 FF1E 8D84 5F56 9510 D35A 80DD F9D2 F77D amdmi3@amdmi3.ru ..: jabber: amdmi3@jabber.ru http://amdmi3.ru
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20150409164926.GC45809>