Re: Ports support for RELENG_4 (Was: Re: Question about ports builds)

2006-07-07 Thread Mark Linimon
On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 09:55:47PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: > The way you break those numbers down is interesting. On i386 there are 206 > errors on -4, 277 on -5, 119 on -6, and 151 on -7. The key fact that I missed in my first reply to this is that the -5 run was killed because there was some p

Re: Ports support for RELENG_4 (Was: Re: Question about ports builds)

2006-07-07 Thread Mark Linimon
On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 09:55:47PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: > I think you're right about that, and my preferred method of operation for > the ports that I maintain has been to try and test on RELENG_4 whenever > possible, but not let not testing stop me from updating a port that works on > 7-curre

Ports support for RELENG_4 (Was: Re: Question about ports builds)

2006-07-06 Thread Doug Barton
Mark Linimon wrote: > The burden of trying to keep everything working on 4 i386 branches, 3 > amd64 branches, and 3 sparc64 branches is too high at this point, especially > with the degree of drift in such things as header files and base compiler > between -4 and -5. Of course, most of these thin

Re: fetching linux (was: Re: Question about ports builds)

2006-07-06 Thread Mark Linimon
On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 02:45:02AM +0400, Boris Samorodov wrote: > I noticed a few days ago that the first site at FEDORA_CORE_SITES > (limestone.uoregon.edu) is acting not reliable. Your logs says the > same (most distributions were taken from the next site -- > mirrors.kernel.org). I'd rather del

fetching linux (was: Re: Question about ports builds)

2006-07-06 Thread Boris Samorodov
On Thu, 6 Jul 2006 16:38:23 -0500 Mark Linimon wrote: > Further note: there may be a recent checkin affecting the linux_base > ports which completely skews this result; I am investigating. However. > there are 206 legitimate build errors on i386-4 now; that doesn't include > any port already mark

Re: Question about ports builds

2006-07-06 Thread Mark Linimon
On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 09:58:54PM +0300, Ion-Mihai IOnut Tetcu wrote: > Actually "support" for 4.x is gone already. We're only required to mark > the ports broken or incorporate patches from the users. Of curse, we > try to fix broken ports on 4-STABLE but that battle is going to be lost. The lat

Re: Question about ports builds

2006-07-06 Thread IOnut
On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 12:07:55 -0400 Chuck Swiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Charlie Sorsby wrote: > > When one builds (or attempts to build) a port, does the Makefile > > know about dependencies and, if necessary, fetch and build any > > that are needed but not found? > > Yes and yes. > > [ ..

Question about ports builds

2006-07-06 Thread Robert Huff
Charlie Sorsby writes: > When one builds (or attempts to build) a port, does the Makefile > know about dependencies and, if necessary, fetch and build any > that are needed but not found? Yes. > PS It would be really helpful if each port/package at freebsd.org > had an indication

Re: Question about ports builds

2006-07-06 Thread Chuck Swiger
Charlie Sorsby wrote: When one builds (or attempts to build) a port, does the Makefile know about dependencies and, if necessary, fetch and build any that are needed but not found? Yes and yes. [ ... ] PS It would be really helpful if each port/package at freebsd.org had an indication whethe

Question about ports builds

2006-07-06 Thread Charlie Sorsby
Hello, When one builds (or attempts to build) a port, does the Makefile know about dependencies and, if necessary, fetch and build any that are needed but not found? Thank you and kindest regards, Charlie PS It would be really helpful if each port/package at freebsd.org had an indication wheth