Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2018 15:17:09 -0400 From: "Jason E. Hale" <jhale@freebsd.org> To: Mathieu Arnold <mat@freebsd.org> Cc: Adriaan de Groot <adridg@freebsd.org>, ports-committers <ports-committers@freebsd.org>, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r467663 - in head/audio: . liblastfm liblastfm-qt5 liblastfm/files Message-ID: <CAJE75NEBTDQt4uQTPVykxsAZRU2oSVL2JL9wxEyMoqubXYKDKw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20180418182939.5w3jvcdemalycpq7@atuin.in.mat.cc> References: <201804172327.w3HNRLIF044763@repo.freebsd.org> <20180418080556.lh6ds7t6e34ackoi@atuin.in.mat.cc> <3174473.pFhRGbBKQR@beastie.bionicmutton.org> <20180418111002.b7ocgnvfo25s5ofk@ogg.in.absolight.net> <CAJE75NG0kA5a6zjfnx3bZcxRuLzHSSw8GuWUntV18UV1KFGUDw@mail.gmail.com> <20180418182939.5w3jvcdemalycpq7@atuin.in.mat.cc>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 2:29 PM, Mathieu Arnold <mat@freebsd.org> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 05:49:52PM +0000, Jason E. Hale wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 7:10 AM, Mathieu Arnold <mat@freebsd.org> wrote: >> > On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 10:21:16AM +0200, Adriaan de Groot wrote: >> >> On Wednesday, 18 April 2018 10:05:56 CEST Mathieu Arnold wrote: >> >> > On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 11:27:21PM +0000, Jason E. Hale wrote: >> >> > > Log: >> >> > > - Update audio/liblastfm to 1.0.9-5-g4433165 [1] >> >> > > - Add audio/liblastfm-qt5 slave port which provides a Qt 5 interface [1] >> >> > >> >> > Why not add flavors instead of a slave port? >> >> >> >> >> >> In an existing review https://reviews.freebsd.org/D14660 you (Mat) say of a >> >> different port >> >> >> >> """We currently do not accept flavors that add new packages though, so this >> >> change will be able to go in when ports-mgmt/poudriere is updated to 3.3.""" >> >> >> >> That would preclude flavorizing liblastfm, wouldn't it? There are a lot of Qt4/ >> >> Qt5 ports that could be flavorized and/or swept together like that. >> > >> > Mmmm, that sentence is not true any more, 3.3 was supposed to be the >> > first release to have the 32k packages limit fix, but as it was taking a >> > bit more time to get there, to the fix was backported to the 3.2 branch >> > and is in 3.2.6. So, flavorizing is possible now. (Still requires >> > portmgr approval.) >> > >> > >> >> I did submit a review for this (https://reviews.freebsd.org/D14667) a >> month ago and you rejected it, so I decided to move forward. Poudriere >> still has a bug in it where it is flavorizing the WRKDIR of the >> math/fftw3 dependency, however, which causes the build to fail without >> that ugly hack I put in. The port builds fine outside of poudriere >> without the hack. I did set up the port to be easily converted to >> FLAVORS, but maybe that bug should be fixed first before I re-attempt? > > So you completely missed the point about why I rejected the review in > the first place. It was so that no new packages would get there until > the 32k poudriere bug was solved in a release. Adding a slave port also > add a new package. > Yes, I suppose I did. You said "We do not currently accept flavors that add new packages." I read that as flavors that add new packages, not any new packages. I thought the bugs being worked out were flavor-related and wasn't aware of the 32k package limit in poudriere, nor of any ban of new packages in general. - Jason
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAJE75NEBTDQt4uQTPVykxsAZRU2oSVL2JL9wxEyMoqubXYKDKw>