Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 20:12:28 -0500 From: Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com> To: David Chisnall <theraven@FreeBSD.org> Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r253563 - head/contrib/libstdc++/include/c_std Message-ID: <20130724011228.GB20455@lonesome.com> In-Reply-To: <201307231023.r6NANhGf065713@svn.freebsd.org> References: <201307231023.r6NANhGf065713@svn.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 10:23:43AM +0000, David Chisnall wrote: > A surprising number of configure checks rely on this. It was broken by recent > cleanups to math.h. Once you have the experiences with the ports tree that I have had, you will no longer assume anything about how ports configure checks work (or many other similar items.) Whatever the number, I would hardly find it surprising. The quality of code in the ports collection varies wildly. Some of it is truly professional-quality. Some of it is written by people who cannot even tie their own shoelaces. The bulk of it is somewhere in the middle -- and many of those people simply do not have the patience or aptitude to understand the multitude of build and configure systems that are out there. We simply don't have the several thousand people that it would probably take to audit the tens of millions of lines of code involved. I would like to very politely suggest that regression testing such changes beforehand is a far more effective strategy -- both technical and inter-personal -- than simply assuming that either port authors or maintainers will get such issues correct. They can be subtle, and there are an indefinite number of them. mcl
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20130724011228.GB20455>