Ports that don't run on !i386

[Marcel Moolenaar]

On Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 08:35:04PM +0000, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
> When I pick up submissions for updates to unmaintained ports I do
> a test build and install.  Sometimes I also do a minimal test run.
> And sometimes the port will not run on my -CURRENT/alpha, which I
> use for that work.  A good many of those cases are very likely due
> to the port not working on alpha (and probably neither on several
> other of our !i386 platforms).

*snip*

> So far I've simply gone ahead and committed the update.

Continue to do that. I would strongly suggest we do not mark the
port broken on some architecture or limit the platforms on which
we build it. The bento errorlogs are so far the best way to see
if a port builds or not and the information does not easily get
stale.

It would help if we can avoid regressions. If a port does build
(at least) on some architecture, then any change or update is
expected to work on that platform too. Adding "fu" in the ports
infrastructure to query bento seems like the best way to make
this information accessable to a wide audience. Something like:

	% cd /usr/ports/emulators/linux_base
	% make bento-ok
	ok: alpha i386
	% cd /usr/ports/www/mozilla
	% make bento-fail
	fail: ia64

This will take into account the ONLY_FOR_ARCHS and NOT_FOR_ARCHS
settings and should generally provide an easy way to figure out
which architectures are affected by the update. Bento can also help
with identifying regressions and we can file PRs in those cases.

Just a random brainwave...

-- 
 Marcel Moolenaar	  USPA: A-39004		 marcel at xcllnt.net