On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 17:56:52 -0800 Ade Lovett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mar 09, 2007, at 17:30 , Jean-Yves Lefort wrote: > > > On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 17:05:31 -0800 > > Ade Lovett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> 3. Ports that *are* affected by this issue (assuming the issue still > >> exists) can be fixed in a more relaxed manner (eg: a conversion of > >> GNU_CONFIGURE=YES to USE_AUTOTOOLS=configurehack [implying > >> GNU_CONFIGURE=YES]) than a time-T switch. It will also allow for > >> such affected ports to have PORTREVISIONs bumped by the respective > >> maintainers so as to more clearly identify improved operation to the > >> consumers of those ports. > > > > All ports that use libtool to produce a program or shared library are > > affected by this issue. > > This in turn implies that in case that there is an issue, and > something needs to be done about it, then silently changing the > semantics of GNU_CONFIGURE is not an appropriate solution. In order > for the change, should it be required, to be communicated to all the > consumers of the FreeBSD ports tree, and not that subset that happens > to read esoteric discussions on a high volume mailing list, this > requires that we use the tools available to us, ie: bumping > PORTREVISION. > > 1. Identify if there is still a problem. I told you there is one. You've been making a fool of yourself by demonstrating that you do not understand the problem, and yet you assume everything I say is wrong? > 2a. If not, get on with something more productive. > 2b. If yes, add a new stanza to USE_AUTOTOOLS, for simplicities sake > we'll call it lthack, which defines GNU_CONFIGURE, and also wanders > through the configuration files performing the appropriate hackery. > > 3. Maintainers that have ports affected by the issue go in to the > Makefile, chunk GNU_CONFIGURE, add USE_AUTOTOOLS= lthack, bump > PORTREVISION, and move on to the next one. > > The semantics of GNU_CONFIGURE itself don't change, so no chance of > unintended infra-structural breakdown, full-tree operations are not > adversely impacted by needlessly including additional Mk/bsd.*.mk > files, and the update is limited to those consumers of the new > USE_AUTOTOOLS stanza, without touching bsd.port.mk, thus not > requiring a full -exp run. A rather more elegant solution than > sledgehammer blows which, whilst occasionally needed, soak up huge > amounts of resource, and are to be avoided if at all possible. That's right, thousands of commits are more elegant, practical, and faster than a single commit and a test run. -- Jean-Yves Lefort [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lefort.be.eu.org/
pgp4QAHE5jR9v.pgp
Description: PGP signature
