Ports that don't run on !i386

Kris Kennaway kris at obsecurity.org
Wed Jun 25 14:50:44 PDT 2003


On Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 08:35:04PM +0000, Christian Weisgerber wrote:

> I can slap a NOT_FOR_ARCHS=alpha on it, but that sounds too final.
> Nobody it going to try to fix a port once it is declared not to
> run.  Besides, it's likely that there are more architectures affected.

If it looks like it might be possible to make it work with a bit of
patching, you could do something like:

.include <bsd.port.pre.mk>

.if ${ARCH} == "alpha"
BROKEN="Does not compile on alpha"
.endif

...

I'm also a bit uneasy about marking ports NOT_FOR_ARCHS unless it's
clear the port will never run on that architecture (e.g. because of
hardware issues).

I also suggest reporting the build error upstream to the vendor so
they are at least aware of it, whether or not they care.

Don't worry too much about checking all supported architectures -
testing the build on i386 4.x and 5.x would be a much better use of
your time.  It would be nice if the port ran on the other
architectures out of the box, of course, but I'll catch it in short
order with the bento tinderboxes and send you and the port submitter
mail pointing to the failure logs, so you can decide what to do after
the fact.

Kris
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/attachments/20030625/c8b4d8f2/attachment.bin


More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list