On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 04:15:20AM -0500, Mark Linimon wrote: > On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 11:27:50AM +0200, Lars Engels wrote: > > At the moment the ports maintainers don't give much about if their ports > > build with CLANG or not because they're not forced to. > > I think this is a mis-representation. > > Adding the requirement "your ports must work on clang" is adding an > ex-post-facto requirement. This creates the following matrix of what > we are implicitly asking maintainers to do: > > (FreeBSD 7|8|9|10) * (amd64|arm|i386|powerpc|sparc64) * (base gcc|base clang) > > It is completely insane to expect anyone to be able to test in all of those > environments, or even a tiny subset of them. This isn't what most people > sign up for when they sign up to maintain ports.
No, I didn't mean it that way. I only meant that the people / maintainers running CURRENT will actually see that their ports don't work and if they want to keep on using them on CURRENT they need to fix them. e.g. two of the ports I maintain don't build with CLANG, yet. I just checked that on the wiki page [1]. I had to look that up manually, but would have experienced that if I my CURRENT box was building with CLANG by default. :) It's clear that we cannot expect our maintainers to check all possible combinations of FreeBSD, architecture and compiler. > > > Those who don't run CURRENT won't notice, but those who do will have to > > get their butts up and fix the ports > > I think it's foolish to assume that maintainres don't have their butts in > gear as it is. Please note, we have nearly 1300 PRs, hundreds of ports with > build errors and/or PRs, and hundreds that fail on -current only. I try to > advertise all these things the best I know how. Adding the hundreds that > fail on -clang only and then blaming the maintainers is simply going to be > counter-productive. [1] http://wiki.freebsd.org/PortsAndClang
pgpYzIi4erNuX.pgp
Description: PGP signature
