Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 14:45:28 +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: <20070310144528.1224e8f1.jylefort@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <8E182699-3175-447C-92EF-B6F0E84B4244@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> <20070310033000.c9d2a66f.jylefort@FreeBSD.org> <8E182699-3175-447C-92EF-B6F0E84B4244@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--Signature=_Sat__10_Mar_2007_14_45_28_+0100_4wZuUXDYbHEc0b_l Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 19:31:17 -0800 Ade Lovett <ade@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > On Mar 09, 2007, at 18:30 , Jean-Yves Lefort wrote: > > I told you there is one. > > You have stated there to be a problem. I am still waiting for > quantifiable evidence. I have not received any so far. Repeatedly read the PR until you understand it. Pay attention to the provided objdump diff, and to the fact that the patch modifies the link_all_deplibs variable. Understand what that variable does. Understand why it should be set to "no" rather than to "unknown". > > That's right, thousands of commits are more elegant, practical, and > > faster than a single commit and a test run. > > There are two separate issues. First, the (possible) fix to the > autotools infrastructure which will be done in an appropriate manner, > and without violating POLA. The patch in ports/104877 *may* address > part of this, but definitely violates POLA by changing the semantics > of GNU_CONFIGURE (thus requiring a poke to bsd.port.mk) which will > likely result in non-deterministic breakage. > > The second is for port maintainers of affected ports to utilize the > mechanisms provided in step one (if such a step is required), and > communicate that fact to folks that use their ports by also bumping > PORTREVISION. > > Of course, if someone (you?) wants to do the leg-work in updating > those ports in one go, working with hundreds of distinct port > maintainers, dealing with the fallout, shepherding the -exp runs > (yes, multiple will be required), by all means go for it. The only > relationship that step 2 has to step 1 is that step 1 is a pre- > requisite. No more, no less. You managed to introduce this regression in one go with your .la resurrection. You should be able to fix it in one go as well. You. Not someone, not me. You are the maintainer, you broke it, you fix it. If you dislike my patch and instead want to annoy maintainers so that they cleanup your own mess, then do so. But do something. -- Jean-Yves Lefort jylefort@FreeBSD.org http://lefort.be.eu.org/ --Signature=_Sat__10_Mar_2007_14_45_28_+0100_4wZuUXDYbHEc0b_l Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFF8rZ4yzD7UaO4AGoRAgtoAJ9lfcGGnNAE0KTO55VBroXZTq5AFwCeJGCC PjEtBqvMvDX9fLMvEJhgu4A= =I5ds -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Signature=_Sat__10_Mar_2007_14_45_28_+0100_4wZuUXDYbHEc0b_l--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070310144528.1224e8f1.jylefort>