On Jan 24, 2013, at 7:13 AM, Daniel J. Luke <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jan 23, 2013, at 10:55 PM, Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia > <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Jan 23, 2013, at 7:39 PM, Daniel J. Luke <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On Jan 23, 2013, at 7:38 PM, [email protected] wrote: >>>> >>>> bind9: Fix inlining >>> >>> What ticket is this for? and/or what was broken that you fixed on this >>> non-openmaintainer port? >> >> This is an obvious fix for a build failure. > > What build failure? Just the +dlz_mysql5 variant? No. It has nothing to do with the dlz_mysql5 variant. > (If so, it wasn't a minimal fix, since it affected more than that variant - > if not, it wasn't something that prevented the build on my local boxes or the > buildboxes, so I don't think it really qualifies under that policy). Well, that's your opinion. I'm sorry we disagree. >> The second is permitted for non-openmaintainer ports, and the former was >> recently suggested as an extension of that allowance. > > It may have been suggested, but as far as I know, it wasn't actually added to > the policy. Well, my apologies for not wanting to bother you with something trivial. >> bind9's "checking for static inline breakage... " check was broken and >> returning "yes" incorrectly because their check was not valid. > > ... but the build still worked fine even though it wasn't inlining things > that it maybe should have been, right? > Did you push your patch back upstream? I spent 5 minutes looking on http://www.isc.org for a way to actually send them the patch only to be presented with requests to fill out a sponsorship application before I could join their forums. As such, ISC doesn't have the patch. > In any event - I always appreciate getting a note and/or ticket if someone is > going to work on one of my non-openmaintainer ports (they aren't > openmaintainer for a reason, after all). Well, you didn't give me much time to send you a note. You replied to my comment seconds after I pushed it ;) > >>> It looks like now everyone who installs it needs autoconf and needs >>> autoreconf where before there were some patches just for dlz_mysql5 :-\ >> >> Yeah, well... them's the breaks. > > ... but the don't have to be. I would think that adding additional > dependencies like that would have at least been enough of a change that you'd > want to let me know about it before you made the change … Sorry. I didn't really see it as a big deal. So many ports depend on autoconf that I don't see it as an added dependency. As I mentioned, it's an obvious fix that I noticed, and I didn't want to bother you with it beforehand. _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
