Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 03:30:00 +0100 From: Jean-Yves Lefort <jylefort@FreeBSD.org> To: Ade Lovett <ade@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org>, Kent Stewart <kstewart@owt.com>, freebsd ports <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Ports 104877 causing big problems Message-ID: <20070310033000.c9d2a66f.jylefort@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <7CF1749C-3254-46AC-ABDD-BAB0D84ED7A1@FreeBSD.org> References: <45F1DDE2.5030404@FreeBSD.org> <BE66AB56-E0B4-420A-910D-9C10DB9AF24D@FreeBSD.org> <45F1EA6A.6070904@FreeBSD.org> <FB399CF7-11E2-4CC9-8C91-7D6850B7B2D8@FreeBSD.org> <20070310023034.c5939c48.jylefort@FreeBSD.org> <7CF1749C-3254-46AC-ABDD-BAB0D84ED7A1@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--Signature=_Sat__10_Mar_2007_03_30_00_+0100_il3vcOV0nxawcJw0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 17:56:52 -0800 Ade Lovett <ade@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > On Mar 09, 2007, at 17:30 , Jean-Yves Lefort wrote: > > > On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 17:05:31 -0800 > > Ade Lovett <ade@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > >> 3. Ports that *are* affected by this issue (assuming the issue still > >> exists) can be fixed in a more relaxed manner (eg: a conversion of > >> GNU_CONFIGURE=YES to USE_AUTOTOOLS=configurehack [implying > >> GNU_CONFIGURE=YES]) than a time-T switch. It will also allow for > >> such affected ports to have PORTREVISIONs bumped by the respective > >> maintainers so as to more clearly identify improved operation to the > >> consumers of those ports. > > > > All ports that use libtool to produce a program or shared library are > > affected by this issue. > > This in turn implies that in case that there is an issue, and > something needs to be done about it, then silently changing the > semantics of GNU_CONFIGURE is not an appropriate solution. In order > for the change, should it be required, to be communicated to all the > consumers of the FreeBSD ports tree, and not that subset that happens > to read esoteric discussions on a high volume mailing list, this > requires that we use the tools available to us, ie: bumping > PORTREVISION. > > 1. Identify if there is still a problem. I told you there is one. You've been making a fool of yourself by demonstrating that you do not understand the problem, and yet you assume everything I say is wrong? > 2a. If not, get on with something more productive. > 2b. If yes, add a new stanza to USE_AUTOTOOLS, for simplicities sake > we'll call it lthack, which defines GNU_CONFIGURE, and also wanders > through the configuration files performing the appropriate hackery. > > 3. Maintainers that have ports affected by the issue go in to the > Makefile, chunk GNU_CONFIGURE, add USE_AUTOTOOLS= lthack, bump > PORTREVISION, and move on to the next one. > > The semantics of GNU_CONFIGURE itself don't change, so no chance of > unintended infra-structural breakdown, full-tree operations are not > adversely impacted by needlessly including additional Mk/bsd.*.mk > files, and the update is limited to those consumers of the new > USE_AUTOTOOLS stanza, without touching bsd.port.mk, thus not > requiring a full -exp run. A rather more elegant solution than > sledgehammer blows which, whilst occasionally needed, soak up huge > amounts of resource, and are to be avoided if at all possible. That's right, thousands of commits are more elegant, practical, and faster than a single commit and a test run. -- Jean-Yves Lefort jylefort@FreeBSD.org http://lefort.be.eu.org/ --Signature=_Sat__10_Mar_2007_03_30_00_+0100_il3vcOV0nxawcJw0 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFF8hgoyzD7UaO4AGoRAiDKAJ4+mpxjq1IVUF1qF+RyE01I4Ck4mACfV+bi oDkyE9mLUz6er83DGfCvFPE= =DAGN -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Signature=_Sat__10_Mar_2007_03_30_00_+0100_il3vcOV0nxawcJw0--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070310033000.c9d2a66f.jylefort>