Am 14.03.2011 04:45, schrieb Ade Lovett:
On Mar 13, 2011, at 16:27 , Peter Jeremy wrote:
Having read through this thread, it is still unclear to me why it is
not possible to fix up the problematic ports before importing gmake
3.82, removing the need for a gmake381 port.
I believe Mark has off
On Mar 13, 2011, at 16:27 , Peter Jeremy wrote:
> Having read through this thread, it is still unclear to me why it is
> not possible to fix up the problematic ports before importing gmake
> 3.82, removing the need for a gmake381 port.
I believe Mark has offered up, on multiple occasions a wiki p
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 08:27:27AM +1100, Peter Jeremy wrote:
> On several occasion, Doug has asked for the results of the gmake 3.82
> exp run. This request (which seems perfectly reasonable to me) has
> been consistently ignored.
Provided in email in this thread two days ago; annotated, at a hi
On 2011-Mar-10 21:46:06 -0600, Ade Lovett wrote:
>As for the rest of your post. It's the usual diatribe. If you think
>you can do better, by all means, step up to the plate and actually
>_do_ something. Like yours truly has done reducing libtool to 1
>version, and autoconf/automake to 2 version
On Mar 12, 2011, at 20:30 , Doug Barton wrote:
> The real problem here is that there is a very tiny subset of FreeBSD
> developers who insist on taking on a disproportionate amount of "behind the
> scenes" responsibilities, and are incredibly resistant to allowing anyone
> else into the inner c
On 3/13/11, Ade Lovett wrote:
>
> On Mar 12, 2011, at 17:22 , b. f. wrote:
>
>>> On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 09:14:50PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
There are way too many things happening "in private" around here and
the only way to solve that problem is to open the doors.
>>>
>>> Would you pl
On 03/12/2011 16:00, Ade Lovett wrote:
On Mar 12, 2011, at 17:22 , b. f. wrote:
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 09:14:50PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
There are way too many things happening "in private" around
here and the only way to solve that problem is to open the
doors.
Would you please offer e
On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 06:00:40PM -0600, Ade Lovett wrote:
> Throwing out a PR with "exp-run probably desirable" is not particularly
> useful, and shows a certain naivety when it comes to such wide-ranging
> changes.
This seems a little harsh to me. OTOH, I think it's become much clearer
to me d
replying to myself.
On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 05:51:44PM -0600, Mark Linimon wrote:
> Up until recently, I haven't been doing any -exps myself, other than to
> test the setup on pointyhat-west (on which I continue to find bugs in the
> newer, generalized, codebase).
Slightly untrue: the previous on
On 03/12/2011 17:14, Rob Farmer wrote:
Also, you suddenly getting involved probably didn't help, because it
just gave the appearance that you guys were trying to double-team
Rob,
I appreciate your thoughtful response to this topic. In fairness to
Mark, I am the one who expanded the scope of d
Actually, not "at random", it was "the latest one that came across
the threshhold." Sorry.
mcl
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...
On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 05:14:14PM -0800, Rob Farmer wrote:
> Also, you suddenly getting involved probably didn't help, because it
> just gave the appearance that you guys were trying to double-team
> Doug.
As I've stated elsewhere in this thread, I had an empty slot for an -exp
and just grabbed o
On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 12:45 PM, Mark Linimon wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 09:14:50PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
>> There are way too many things happening "in private" around here and
>> the only way to solve that problem is to open the doors.
>
> Would you please offer examples of decisions
On Mar 12, 2011, at 17:22 , b. f. wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 09:14:50PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
>>> There are way too many things happening "in private" around here and
>>> the only way to solve that problem is to open the doors.
>>
>> Would you please offer examples of decisions that y
I'm sorry that I did not have a chance to run the gmake -exp sooner.
Up until recently, I haven't been doing any -exps myself, other than to
test the setup on pointyhat-west (on which I continue to find bugs in the
newer, generalized, codebase). I put the gmake -exp on there primarily as
a way to
>On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 09:14:50PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
>> There are way too many things happening "in private" around here and
>> the only way to solve that problem is to open the doors.
>
>Would you please offer examples of decisions that you feel that way about?
We need not look any farth
On 03/12/2011 13:51, Michal Varga wrote:
On Sat, 2011-03-12 at 22:46 +0100, Michal Varga wrote:
On Sat, 2011-03-12 at 13:34 -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
On 03/12/2011 12:45, Mark Linimon wrote:
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 09:14:50PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
There are way too many things happening "
On 03/12/2011 13:47, Mark Linimon wrote:
On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 01:34:58PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
Would you please offer examples of decisions that you feel that way about?
Clearly it would be inappropriate for me to comment publicly on
things that were discussed in private, so no, I'm not
On Sat, 2011-03-12 at 22:46 +0100, Michal Varga wrote:
> On Sat, 2011-03-12 at 13:34 -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
> > On 03/12/2011 12:45, Mark Linimon wrote:
> > > On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 09:14:50PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
> > >> There are way too many things happening "in private" around here and
On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 01:34:58PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
> >Would you please offer examples of decisions that you feel that way about?
>
> Clearly it would be inappropriate for me to comment publicly on
> things that were discussed in private, so no, I'm not going to do
> that.
You just discu
On Sat, 2011-03-12 at 13:34 -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 03/12/2011 12:45, Mark Linimon wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 09:14:50PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
> >> There are way too many things happening "in private" around here and
> >> the only way to solve that problem is to open the doors.
>
On 03/12/2011 12:45, Mark Linimon wrote:
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 09:14:50PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
There are way too many things happening "in private" around here and
the only way to solve that problem is to open the doors.
Would you please offer examples of decisions that you feel that wa
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 09:14:50PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
> There are way too many things happening "in private" around here and
> the only way to solve that problem is to open the doors.
Would you please offer examples of decisions that you feel that way about?
mcl
___
On Mar 11, 2011, at 23:14 , Doug Barton wrote:
> What harm will come from publicizing this problem and asking for help from
> the community?
Seems 'the community' has already awoken and started fixing stuff without the
second test -exp run even having finished. I rest my case.
-aDe
_
Jeremy Messenger wrote:
> You can remove devel/ORBit and irc/xchat-gnome from your patch. I have
> fixed those ports to build with gmake 3.82.
I fixed net/xtraceroute and deskutils/contacts and sent a patch to
the maintainer of misc/gnustep-examples... since I had those fixes
already lying aroun
On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 11:48 AM, Jeremy Messenger
wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 11:43 AM, Ade Lovett wrote:
>> Work is now underway to bring GNU make 3.82 into the tree. Sadly, there are
>> a number of rather unfortunate backwards incompatibility issues between this
>> and 3.81 which makes
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 11:43 AM, Ade Lovett wrote:
> Work is now underway to bring GNU make 3.82 into the tree. Sadly, there are
> a number of rather unfortunate backwards incompatibility issues between this
> and 3.81 which makes a simple replacement unworkable.
>
> A new port, devel/gmake381
On 03/10/2011 21:05, Mark Linimon wrote:
I answered this question last night on IRC, aDe answered it in email:
What is the urgency in upgrading gmake that prevents "fix the broken
ports first" as an option to at least explore?
Now that gmake is out, if the past is any indication, some project
On Mar 10, 2011, at 22:02 , Doug Barton wrote:
> But if you'd like to engage in a discussion rather than throwing around ad
> hominem's and pointless "patches welcome" statements, maybe you can show me
> why I'm wrong.
How about working from the basis that perhaps, just perhaps, I'm _right_, an
I answered this question last night on IRC, aDe answered it in email:
> What is the urgency in upgrading gmake that prevents "fix the broken
> ports first" as an option to at least explore?
Now that gmake is out, if the past is any indication, some project
will quickly upgrade to it. We can wait
On 03/10/2011 19:46, Ade Lovett wrote:
On Mar 10, 2011, at 18:09 , Doug Barton wrote:
First, my point was not "there are going to be a lot of gmake
ports," my point was, "there will be>1 for a long time after it's
split into>1." You have now proved my point, thanks.
Apples and oranges, my fri
On Mar 10, 2011, at 18:09 , Doug Barton wrote:
> First, my point was not "there are going to be a lot of gmake ports," my
> point was, "there will be >1 for a long time after it's split into >1." You
> have now proved my point, thanks.
Apples and oranges, my friend. Given the sheer amount of s
On 03/10/2011 15:54, Mark Linimon wrote:
On Mar 10, 2011, at 14:21 , Doug Barton wrote:
I admire your optimism, however experience tells us that once these
types of accomodations get into the tree, they stay there for a long
time.
Here's what I have on my system:
devel/autoconf
devel/au
Mark Linimon writes:
> Summary: there used to be a lot of auto* ports. There aren't,
> now.
Am I correct in remembering the "used to be" period covered
2+(+) years?
Robert "sure seemed like it :-)" Huff
__
On Mar 10, 2011, at 14:21 , Doug Barton wrote:
> I admire your optimism, however experience tells us that once these
> types of accomodations get into the tree, they stay there for a long
> time.
Here's what I have on my system:
devel/autoconf
devel/autoconf213
devel/automake
devel/automa
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 02:05:50PM -0600, Ade Lovett wrote:
> Preliminary runs show ~50 ports that break with 3.82, some of them
> unfortunately being dependencies for a reasonable number of others.
For values of "reasonable" in the ~1100 range.
mcl
___
On 03/10/2011 12:52, Ade Lovett wrote:
On Mar 10, 2011, at 14:21 , Doug Barton wrote:
What I'm suggesting is that the URL for the logs of that run get
posted here, along with contacting the maintainers of the affected
ports. Then let's see what people have to say about getting them
fixed sooner
On Mar 10, 2011, at 14:21 , Doug Barton wrote:
> What I'm suggesting is that the URL for the logs of that run get posted here,
> along with contacting the maintainers of the affected ports. Then let's see
> what people have to say about getting them fixed sooner rather than later.
> Can you exp
On 03/10/2011 12:05, Ade Lovett wrote:
On Mar 10, 2011, at 13:24 , Doug Barton wrote:
Can you give us an idea of how many ports we're talking about?
Rather than having 2 gmake ports (which is likely to last for a
very long time, "best laid plans" aside) can we at least explore
the idea of fixin
On Mar 10, 2011, at 13:24 , Doug Barton wrote:
> Can you give us an idea of how many ports we're talking about? Rather than
> having 2 gmake ports (which is likely to last for a very long time, "best
> laid plans" aside) can we at least explore the idea of fixing things that are
> broken to wor
On 03/10/2011 09:43, Ade Lovett wrote:
Work is now underway to bring GNU make 3.82 into the tree. Sadly,
there are a number of rather unfortunate backwards incompatibility
issues between this and 3.81 which makes a simple replacement
unworkable.
Can you give us an idea of how many ports we're
41 matches
Mail list logo
