Ports 104877 causing big problems

[Ade Lovett]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


On Mar 09, 2007, at 18:30 , Jean-Yves Lefort wrote:
> I told you there is one.

You have stated there to be a problem.  I am still waiting for  
quantifiable evidence.  I have not received any so far.

> That's right, thousands of commits are more elegant, practical, and
> faster than a single commit and a test run.

There are two separate issues.  First, the (possible) fix to the  
autotools infrastructure which will be done in an appropriate manner,  
and without violating POLA.  The patch in ports/104877 *may* address  
part of this, but definitely violates POLA by changing the semantics  
of GNU_CONFIGURE (thus requiring a poke to bsd.port.mk) which will  
likely result in non-deterministic breakage.

The second is for port maintainers of affected ports to utilize the  
mechanisms provided in step one (if such a step is required), and  
communicate that fact to folks that use their ports by also bumping  
PORTREVISION.

Of course, if someone (you?) wants to do the leg-work in updating  
those ports in one go, working with hundreds of distinct port  
maintainers, dealing with the fallout, shepherding the -exp runs  
(yes, multiple will be required), by all means go for it.  The only  
relationship that step 2 has to step 1 is that step 1 is a pre- 
requisite.  No more, no less.

- -aDe

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFF8iaGpXS8U0IvffwRAveBAJ9TQTXqMSLZBOpFag2Y6ecjMphCEgCfXHnJ
R3lKLigVZ9tFY0HTBX516gY=
=Qlih
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----