On 11 Mar 2018, at 15:47, Ken Cunningham <ken.cunningham.web...@gmail.com> 
wrote:
>> 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?

Reply via email to