From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jun 13 08:24:22 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D70AAFF for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2013 08:24:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd@grem.de) Received: from mail.grem.de (outcast.grem.de [213.239.217.27]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id CF6851F38 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2013 08:24:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 17161 invoked by uid 89); 13 Jun 2013 08:17:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bsd64.grem.de) (mg@grem.de@93.215.186.42) by mail.grem.de with ESMTPA; 13 Jun 2013 08:17:38 -0000 Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:17:37 +0200 From: Michael Gmelin To: Chris Rees Subject: Re: Are ports supposed to build and run on 10-CURRENT? Message-ID: <20130613101737.19f01b10@bsd64.grem.de> In-Reply-To: <3d2e51e9-3aa2-43ba-91c4-13fbbbe9c94e.maildroid@localhost> References: <20130613031535.4087d7f9@bsd64.grem.de> <3d2e51e9-3aa2-43ba-91c4-13fbbbe9c94e.maildroid@localhost> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.9.1 (GTK+ 2.24.18; amd64-portbld-freebsd9.1) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Eitan Adler , crees@physics.org, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 08:24:22 -0000 On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 07:20:13 +0100 Chris Rees wrote: > It's worth bearing in mind that head becomes a release every so > often. If you don't make sure your ports build there, it makes life > harder for people running and testing it, and makes for a mad rush > and scramble to fix broken ports before a major release. Thanks for stating the obvious, but usually I'm crossing that bridge once we have a release candidate available. As far as I remember personally, the FreeBSD project didn't do a release by surprise within the last 15 years :). Right now there's not even a planned release date for 10 on the release engineering web site. Not even as TBD. > > Since the port can often be fixed with a USE_GCC=any conditional on > OSVERSION, I must question how much of a hardship it really is... This was a general question and the hardship lies in the extra time spent testing on CURRENT, including dependencies. The fact that it builds using gcc doesn't mean that it runs correctly on that version. In this case the unit tests provided upstream test for many things and are able to find catastrophic failures, but part of the QA I do as a maintainer is also testing more subtle scenarios including staging real life software built using the port, which is extremely time consuming and revealed mission critical problems in the past. I can't guarantee that for 10, so why pretend it builds ok if it hasn't been tested thoroughly? So in this specific case I think going with Eitan's suggestion makes the most sense: > .if ${OSVERSION} > ${WHEREEVERITBROKE} > BROKEN= Unit tests fail > .endif Which probably should be (since the unit tests fail for a good reason): .if ${OSVERSION} >= 1000000) BROKEN= Not ready for FreeBSD 10 .endif Should I add a new patch to the PR or is this something the committer could just put in there by herself? Two more notes: - As a user of the ports tree, I would expect committers to QA submissions on RELEASE version of the OS as well. - If committers find a port that works on RELEASE but not on CURRENT, I would suggest to simply add a version specific BROKEN message to the Makefile by default, inform the submitter and not delay the submission any further. Cheers, Michael > > Chris > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" -- Michael Gmelin