On 08/31/13 22:25, Boris Samorodov wrote:
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?
Unluckily it was a little mangled by gnats, it's one single patch, but
gnats split it due to a piece it was not understanding.
I'm creating another updated patch I'll send as a followup avoiding
parts(props changes) which could confuse gnats!
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.
This is the first time I work with such a big patch, I'm not sure what
is the best way to work with it.
Maybe the exp run could be run against a specific revision of the ports
tree with which the patch applies. This could be a way to get some
result even if not against the latest tree, it would be just a few days
behind at most.
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?)
I mainly centered my attention on the ones with USES=iconv, which were
the ones I saw failing most, since most of those have pieces in the
Makefiles to force the ported software to link against libiconv.so in
/usr/local. I asked for the exp run for the specific reason I'd like to
get a better idea of what is the shape of our ports tree, and to get a
better understanding of how hard the task of switching to lib iconv
could really be.
From the subset of ports I have tested this (around 1200, mainly the
ones I use in some way) it looks to me that our ports tree isn't in bad
shape. On the 1200 ports I use I had to patch just a few, around 12.
Most ports seem to just do the right thing anyway. In fact if it wasn't
for cups and a pair of other high profile ones failing I wouldn't have
noticed the problem at all!
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!
It is quite possible it's me being terribly wrong. That's what I'm
trying to ascertain. :)
I'm just at the first steps in this, I still need a few days to test it
all completely, and study a correct update path for all users.
--
Guido Falsi <[email protected]>
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
