On 11 Mar 2018, at 15:47, Ken Cunningham <ken.cunningham.web...@gmail.com>
>> On Mar 11, 2018, at 06:06, db <iams...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11 Mar 2018, at 02:47, "Kenneth F. Cunningham"
>> <ken.cunningham.web...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2018-03-10, at 12:23 PM, db wrote:
>>>> Except for building from source for minor versions and revbumps,
>>>> especially large binaries, and for ports that have open defects. Oh well…
>>> Well, everything for 10.6.8 users on MacPorts is about to get supremely
>>> better. Hard to be too upset about that!
>> I don't doubt that! What I don't understand is, why would port be allowed to
>> build a port from source on a certain system that already failed on the
>> buildbot, and what's worse, be left with a port in a non-working state,
>> while downloading binaries would work, because it couldn't donwload
>> something that's failed to build.
> You can sent your buildfromsource value to "never" I believe .... would that
> do what you're asking?
No. Recently, someone posted about a port dependent on qscintilla-qt4 left in a
non-working state because this dependency fails to build. Why is a current
version of software made available in a port definition whereby it cannot be
built by the buildbot yet in the first place? I noticed that qscintilla-qt4 is
not distributed at http://distfiles.macports.org/, although the license should
allow it, I guess. But even if it weren't, does the buildbot build software
that's not distributable just for the sake of testing? If not, shouldn't it,
prior to accepting an updated port definition?