git: dc9bf7d64926 - main - net/asterisk*: Add aarch64 support

[Guido Falsi]

On 15/07/21 18:59, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 04:38:53PM +0200, Guido Falsi wrote:
>> On 15/07/21 04:06, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
>>> ...
>>> I think ONLY_FOR_ARCHS here clearly outlived its purpose and can just
>>> be removed.  It arguably misses MIPS, but we aren't promising much for
>>> that tier anyways, and this harness just gets in the way of those who
>>> know that they're doing.  After all, there shouldn't be anything
>>> inherently architecture-specific about the telephony toolkit, but even
>>> if there is, individual BROKEN_$arch would be more appropriate.
>>
>> The fact that mips is not included is exactly the reason I did not
>> remove ONLY_FOR_ARCHS.
>>
>> If what you say is the general consensus I'll be quite happy to get rid
>> of it.
> 
> You'd likely not get general consensus as most people don't care. :-)

Maybe I did not choose my words wisely. More than consensus I was 
looking for a "no objection" consensus.

> 
>> I guess this compiler mix situation is not an issue anymore.
> 
> Right.  I think it's generally bad idea to prematurely restrict software
> to certain arches unless it's clearly arch-specific (e.g. comes only in
> binary precompiled form or uses asm code).  New arches appear frequently
> (e.g. powerpc64le, riscv64) and some go away as well (ia64, sparc64), it
> just does not look feasible to maintain those ONLY_FOR_ARCHS lists so
> they'd always reflect the reality.
> 
> Even if one's port does break on MIPS, one should get a notice from the
> build cluster and either fix it, or mark is as BROKEN_$arch, rather than
> keep ONLY_FOR_ARCHS which would only get amended, causing needless repo
> churn, upon every next time someone discovers that it builds and works
> on their architecture of interest.
> 

I fundamentally agree with what you say so I've followed your suggestion 
and removed the restriction.

-- 
Guido Falsi <madpilot at FreeBSD.org>