Ports marked as IGNORE - (cups-pdf) & (urlview) why - how long?

[David Southwell]

> > Looks like all the PR's were not in place before the test was run on
> > pointyhat.
> 
> pointyhat doesn't have anything to do with PRs.  It runs based on what
> is checked into CVS when its runs start.  How would it be able to do
> otherwise?  The ports PR count is currently 998.  How is a computer
> program going to know which ones are relevant or correct?
> 
> > I deduced from the information on my system that the error was more
> > likely due to a false positive for failure by the testing procedure
> > rather than due to an inherent failure in the code.
> 
> build error != install error.  If you look at the two error logs, you'll
> see that those are install errors (files required to be installed not
> installed; files required to be deinstalled not being deinstalled).
> 
> Ports that do not allow a clean install/deinstall cycle are broken,
> whether they compile or not.
> 
> mcl
> 
Yes I agree BUT it is suggested that the reason that there was not a clean 
install/deinstall cycle was because the pointyhat test may have been done 
without the benefit of PR ports 141375. Here is Mathew Seaman's take on it:

"Looks like the problem would have been fixed in PR ports/141375, which 
modified
the cups-base port to create the directory in question.  As that fix was 
applied
on the 12th at 19:39 and the last pointyhat test on cups-pdf appears to have 
been
on the same day at 20:57 I reckon pointyhat just missed getting the fix for at
least one of its test cases by about >< that much."

What we need now is another test on pointyhat to see whether his speculation 
is accurate. It seems highly probable to me.

Time will tell

David