Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2004 13:42:36 +0100 From: Oliver Eikemeier <eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com> To: FreeBSD ports <ports@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Subject: marking ports BROKEN vs. IGNORE Message-ID: <4054533C.7080503@fillmore-labs.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In a recent discussion we noticed that there are no clear guidelines whether a port should be marked IGNORE or BROKEN. To give an example: - a port tries to autodetect /usr/lib/libmilter.a, and if it isn't found bails out, telling the user to upgrade the base system or depend on the port. I opted for BROKEN, since we might remove sendmail from the base system altogether (as recently discussed on developers@), and we will see the port failing on bento then, instead of silently not building packages. Examples are mail/spamass-milter, mail/sccmilter, mail/sentinel, mail/milter-sender and mail/kavmilter. Most ports use IGNORE when they find the wrong perl version, but mail/maildirsync uses BROKEN. OTOH BROKEN is used when they don't compile on a certain platform, even though there are ONLY_FOR_ARCHS and NOT_FOR_ARCHS, which imply IGNORE. The FreeBSD Porter's Handbook is not excessively clear about that point: <http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/porters-handbook/dads-broken.html>; - "If in doubt, do use IGNORE ..." bsd.port.mk says: - IGNORE [...] should be used sparingly. So maybe we can get a clarification on this and add this to the porter's handbook? -Oliver
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4054533C.7080503>