From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jun 25 14:50:43 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEF1637B401 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 14:50:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from obsecurity.dyndns.org (adsl-64-169-104-32.dsl.lsan03.pacbell.net [64.169.104.32]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8A654400F for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 14:50:42 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kris@obsecurity.org) Received: from rot13.obsecurity.org (rot13.obsecurity.org [10.0.0.5]) by obsecurity.dyndns.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47E5F66E3D; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 14:50:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by rot13.obsecurity.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 17C7259E; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 14:50:42 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 14:50:42 -0700 From: Kris Kennaway To: Christian Weisgerber Message-ID: <20030625215041.GA37147@rot13.obsecurity.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="x+6KMIRAuhnl3hBn" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Ports that don't run on !i386 X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 21:50:44 -0000 --x+6KMIRAuhnl3hBn Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 08:35:04PM +0000, Christian Weisgerber wrote: > I can slap a NOT_FOR_ARCHS=alpha on it, but that sounds too final. > Nobody it going to try to fix a port once it is declared not to > run. Besides, it's likely that there are more architectures affected. If it looks like it might be possible to make it work with a bit of patching, you could do something like: .include .if ${ARCH} == "alpha" BROKEN="Does not compile on alpha" .endif ... I'm also a bit uneasy about marking ports NOT_FOR_ARCHS unless it's clear the port will never run on that architecture (e.g. because of hardware issues). I also suggest reporting the build error upstream to the vendor so they are at least aware of it, whether or not they care. Don't worry too much about checking all supported architectures - testing the build on i386 4.x and 5.x would be a much better use of your time. It would be nice if the port ran on the other architectures out of the box, of course, but I'll catch it in short order with the bento tinderboxes and send you and the port submitter mail pointing to the failure logs, so you can decide what to do after the fact. Kris --x+6KMIRAuhnl3hBn Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE++hkxWry0BWjoQKURAsVJAKCOgsuiPW7VEX59snucCqi9jwLr/wCg7mI5 oQGq3pT/A1ZL4lppT+pUbBc= =xaeG -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --x+6KMIRAuhnl3hBn--