31.08.2013 23:17, Boris Samorodov пишет: > (let's change the subject to a more apropriate) > > 31.08.2013 18:28, Guido Falsi пишет: > >> I have spent a few hours experimenting and produced this PR: >> >> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/181693
Guido, here are some notes about your PR and patches. There are two patches. Seems that the second one is not needed. Is it? I know it's very time consuming and thanks for your work, but... I would not recommend to include at the patch changes not linked with the matter. Ports are changing (headers, optionsNG, LIB_DEPENDS syntax, etc.) -- it may be extreamly difficult to you to create a patch which is ready to test by portmgr, then do some changes to the patch and then finally to get a patch which is ready to commit. Actually it doesn't apply _now_ (several hours after submitting a PR!), not to say in a week or two... BTW, failed hunks are almost all have number 1, so headers are changing rapidly. And I have a question about the amount of ports at your patch. I grepped the first patch for "Index" and got 97 files. So you patch about a hundred ports. Then I grepped the portstree makefiles for "iconv" and got 778 ports (let's assume some are false positives, so actual amout may be aroud 700). So the question is: are those 600 untouched ports currently ready to use base iconv (well, after bmk changes)? If yes, then our portstree is at a good state! (Well, maybe those that just have USES=iconv are ready?) Sorry, I did just a quick glance at the matter, so you may understand it better. I beg your pardon if I'm terribly wrong. Thanks! -- WBR, Boris Samorodov (bsam) FreeBSD Committer, http://www.FreeBSD.org The Power To Serve _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
