Flaw in print/acroread7 (was: Re: [ru@FreeBSD.org: [patch] mixed i386/amd64 ports semi-broken])

[Kris Kennaway]

On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 04:08:47AM +0100, Jean-Yves Lefort wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 22:10:19 +0100
> Alexander Leidinger <Alexander at Leidinger.net> wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 20:52:40 +0200
> > Ruslan Ermilov <ru at freebsd.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > I hit this problem attempting to install print/acroread7 on amd64.
> > > It depends on emulators/linux_base-8, which rewrites ${ARCH} from
> > > "amd64" to "i386".  Unfortunately, when linux_base-8 is processed
> > > in a submake, e.g., when I run "make fetch-recursive" in
> > > print/acroread7, no rewrite of ${ARCH} actually happens because
> > > bsd.port.mk mistakenly thinks that ${ARCH} can never change, so
> > > it's getting passed ARCH already set to "amd64", and as a highest
> > > priority command-line type make(1) variable.  This results in
> > > ${MD5_FILE} improperly set to distinfo.amd64 which doesn't exist.
> > > Here's a fix:
> > > 
> > > %%%
> > > Index: bsd.port.mk
> > 
> > For this particular problem: acroread7 should set ARCH like every other
> > linux port does (better: every other tested linux port should do) to
> > i386. But there are more flaws in Trevor's ports and I decided to let
> > other people "handle" it (e.g. mezz has some patches for acroread7
> > which would let the port behave more to the rules of the porters
> > handbook).
> 
> Any reason to not consider (cluster test) Ruslan's solution?

Before I put it on the cluster I'd want reasonable evidence that the
patch isn't going to break more ports than it fixes (which seems
likely to me).

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/20060129/aec15bca/attachment.bin