From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jun 25 15:25:45 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 80B2137B401 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 15:25:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ns1.xcllnt.net (209-128-86-226.BAYAREA.NET [209.128.86.226]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1ABE43FF5 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 15:25:44 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from marcel@xcllnt.net) Received: from dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net (dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net [192.168.4.201]) by ns1.xcllnt.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h5PMPiDZ012941; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 15:25:44 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from marcel@piii.pn.xcllnt.net) Received: from dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h5PMPhhn032573; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 15:25:44 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from marcel@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net) Received: (from marcel@localhost) by dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h5PMPhIk032572; Wed, 25 Jun 2003 15:25:43 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from marcel) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 15:25:43 -0700 From: Marcel Moolenaar To: Christian Weisgerber Message-ID: <20030625222543.GA32426@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i 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 22:25:45 -0000 On Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 08:35:04PM +0000, Christian Weisgerber wrote: > When I pick up submissions for updates to unmaintained ports I do > a test build and install. Sometimes I also do a minimal test run. > And sometimes the port will not run on my -CURRENT/alpha, which I > use for that work. A good many of those cases are very likely due > to the port not working on alpha (and probably neither on several > other of our !i386 platforms). *snip* > So far I've simply gone ahead and committed the update. Continue to do that. I would strongly suggest we do not mark the port broken on some architecture or limit the platforms on which we build it. The bento errorlogs are so far the best way to see if a port builds or not and the information does not easily get stale. It would help if we can avoid regressions. If a port does build (at least) on some architecture, then any change or update is expected to work on that platform too. Adding "fu" in the ports infrastructure to query bento seems like the best way to make this information accessable to a wide audience. Something like: % cd /usr/ports/emulators/linux_base % make bento-ok ok: alpha i386 % cd /usr/ports/www/mozilla % make bento-fail fail: ia64 This will take into account the ONLY_FOR_ARCHS and NOT_FOR_ARCHS settings and should generally provide an easy way to figure out which architectures are affected by the update. Bento can also help with identifying regressions and we can file PRs in those cases. Just a random brainwave... -- Marcel Moolenaar USPA: A-39004 marcel@xcllnt.net