On 11 Mar 2018, at 15:47, Ken Cunningham <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Mar 11, 2018, at 06:06, db <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 11 Mar 2018, at 02:47, "Kenneth F. Cunningham" >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> On 2018-03-10, at 12:23 PM, db wrote: >>>> Except for building from source for minor versions and revbumps, >>>> especially large binaries, and for ports that have open defects. Oh well… >>> Well, everything for 10.6.8 users on MacPorts is about to get supremely >>> better. Hard to be too upset about that! >> I don't doubt that! What I don't understand is, why would port be allowed to >> build a port from source on a certain system that already failed on the >> buildbot, and what's worse, be left with a port in a non-working state, >> while downloading binaries would work, because it couldn't donwload >> something that's failed to build. > You can sent your buildfromsource value to "never" I believe .... would that > do what you're asking?
No. Recently, someone posted about a port dependent on qscintilla-qt4 left in a non-working state because this dependency fails to build. Why is a current version of software made available in a port definition whereby it cannot be built by the buildbot yet in the first place? I noticed that qscintilla-qt4 is not distributed at http://distfiles.macports.org/, although the license should allow it, I guess. But even if it weren't, does the buildbot build software that's not distributable just for the sake of testing? If not, shouldn't it, prior to accepting an updated port definition?
