svn commit: r430981 - head/editors/vim

[Adam Weinberger]

> On 9 Jan, 2017, at 10:22, John Marino <freebsd.contact at marino.st> wrote:
> 
> On 1/9/2017 11:03, Adam Weinberger wrote:
>> Author: adamw
>> Date: Mon Jan  9 17:03:37 2017
>> New Revision: 430981
>> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/430981
>> 
>> Log:
>>  Re-add MAKE_JOBS_UNSAFE. From mat:
>>    --- scratch ---
>>    cp config.mk.dist auto/config.mk
>>    --- clean ---
>>    make[2]: "/wrkdirs/usr/ports/editors/vim/work/vim-8.0.0149/src/po/Makefile" line 4: Could not find ../auto/config.mk
>>    make[2]: Fatal errors encountered -- cannot continue
>> 
>>  Install desktop files and icons when the GNOME, GTK2, or GTK3 knobs are turned
>>  on. Requested by Kevin Zheng. PORTREVISION bump for this.
>> 
> 
> Hi Adam,
> So I looked up the commit history since this message made me curious and this comes from 10 DEC 16:
> "Patch 129 was a fix for parallel make. It builds fine for me on
> FreeBSD with -j4, and on macOS with -j8, but that's the extent
> of what I can test on my own. I'm removing MAKE_JOBS_UNSAFE with
> this commit, but if one of you with your crazy 256-core machines
> encounters build failures then please let me know!"
> 
> I've seen this kind of thing from time-to-time, where somebody like me, after being 100% sure and, marks a port jobs unsafe usually documenting why.  Then later, somebody tries to recreate it on some random machine, can't do it, and decides, "Hey, it must have magically fixed itself" and removes the label.  And then, of course, it's actually still broken and the original committer often has to relabel the port unsafe.
> 
> What should happen is that the original cause for jobs unsafety has to be traced, and then either A) patched to fix to B) confirm concretely that upstream has identified and fixed the problem.  Without concrete proof that a port has been fixed, IMO it should remain unsafe indefinitely.
> 
> I don't think this is written down anywhere, but it would be nice if it were documented in a guide, perhaps the do's/dont's for ports committers because incorrect reversion of MAKE_JOBS_UNSAFE happens much more often than it should.
> 
> No, it's not the worst thing in the world, but I think as a group we can do better in this area.  Reproducing jobs unsafety is not always easy, nor is it a simple matter of -j number.
> 
> John

You're totally right about this, and I can't disagree with anything you said here. I had some confidence that the build problem was fixed (I ran into the original problem 100% of the time, and with patch 129 it built successfully 100% of the time for me), but, as you noted, wishful thinking isn't concrete evidence, no matter how hard you cross your fingers.

I do urge you to produce an item for the PH.

# Adam


-- 
Adam Weinberger
adamw at adamw.org
https://www.adamw.org