Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2012 13:37:50 -0800 From: Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> To: Stephen Montgomery-Smith <stephen@missouri.edu> Cc: Andriy Gapon <avg@freebsd.org>, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Please test your commits Message-ID: <20120212213750.GA93817@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> In-Reply-To: <4F383004.2000800@missouri.edu> References: <20120212193927.GA86426@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <CADLo83_UZR0K15LQWoXb-AAhd1wj25fbeKSAPch5ji_Q=41f8A@mail.gmail.com> <20120212201624.GA86650@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <4F3820AD.4090702@FreeBSD.org> <20120212204118.GA86775@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <CADLo83_w1A7tv3jgK_LQZCgi7odbEniE4Qfn1HJwgjWBNVn4ig@mail.gmail.com> <20120212204526.GB86775@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <CADLo83_Ni55YqyM6H3Tn7gWMx1pWe6TqtvtRB-WVuiB5dU6KnA@mail.gmail.com> <20120212211744.GC86775@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <4F383004.2000800@missouri.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 03:32:52PM -0600, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote: > > > >But, the 2nd issue with too many arguments in a function call is > >clearly evident on amd64 because I justed test that on FreeBSD 10. > > Yes. But the issue isn't whether someone else was correct in why the > port might or might not have built in a particular environment. > > The issue is whether you were too hasty in your initial accusation that > the committer didn't test their commit. And another issue is whether > you should apologize to them for attempting to publicly humiliate them. > I've now tested on i386 and amd64, and the port fails to build on both architectures. Given the code for the malloc.h failure, this port will fail on all non-amd64 platforms that freebsd runs (dating back FreeBSD 5.0). The evidence suggests that this commit was not tested. -- Steve
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120212213750.GA93817>