Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 17:51:26 -0700 From: Darren Pilgrim <freebsd@bitfreak.org> To: Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com> Cc: jroberson@chesapeake.net, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-amd64@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ports broken on amd64 [was: Re: Intel C2D COREs not used equally in FreeBSD 7.0-CURRENT i386] Message-ID: <466F3F8E.2010404@bitfreak.org> In-Reply-To: <20070613002128.GB21194@soaustin.net> References: <200706051316.l55DGSU0052272@lurza.secnetix.de> <466F1CCF.6020607@bitfreak.org> <20070613002128.GB21194@soaustin.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Mark Linimon wrote: > On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 03:23:11PM -0700, Darren Pilgrim wrote: >> Is there a list of known amd64-broken ports or have they all been >> flagged in the tree with (NOT|ONLY)_FOR_ARCHS variables? > > They are flagged BROKEN when kris notices a bad result from the build > cluster (pointyhat.freebsd.org). For a long time, people have used > those *_FOR_ARCHS as a shorthand for conditionally marking them > broken, in some cases only because they didn't have an amd64 to test > with. These ports should be changed over; my feeling is that the > true use of *_FOR_ARCHS should only be for "port cannot be made to > work on this architecture". I'm a bit lost on this logic. Why would an unconditional flag be more appropriate than a conditional flag for a situation that is inherently conditional? BROKEN_WITH_MYSQL, BROKEN_WITH_PGSQL and BROKEN_WITH_PHP all have the purpose of preventing the build when the port isn't compatible with the target environment--using BROKEN as you describe seems to go against the model seen elsewhere.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?466F3F8E.2010404>