On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 09:57:14AM +0100, Chris Rees wrote: > On 30 Sep 2011 09:41, "Ed Schouten" <e...@80386.nl> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > * Stanislav Sedov <s...@freebsd.org>, 20110929 22:43: > > > I think this is a good idea. > > > I recommend sending this to re@ and/or core@ for consideration. > > > Personally, I'd love to see this committed ASAP, as I'm unable > > > to do any ports work right now. > > > > I've poked portmgr@. :-) > > > > But portmgr has already replied... > Indeed and the answer hasn't changed. Ports on HEAD are only provided best effort, for regression testing etc, and users of HEAD are expected to be techincally savvy enough to work around potential problems themselves. Feel free to apply Ed's patch locally, but it won't make it into CVS.
That said, this patch is the wrong place to fix a problem to autotools. It needs to be fixed in autotools, not bsd.port.mk. No matter if it's bsd.ports.mk or autotools, such a fix needs proper testing, for which we do not currently have the resources as we are concentrating on releasing 9.0. I would suggest you do the same and make 9.0 the best release possible during the next few weeks, after that we'll start looking into 10.0. Erwin -- Erwin Lansing http://droso.org Prediction is very difficult especially about the future er...@freebsd.org _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
