marking ports BROKEN vs. IGNORE

[Oliver Eikemeier]

In a recent discussion we noticed that there are no clear guidelines whether a 
port should be marked IGNORE or BROKEN.

To give an example:

- a port tries to autodetect /usr/lib/libmilter.a, and if it isn't found bails 
  out, telling the user to upgrade the base system or depend on the port.

I opted for BROKEN, since we might remove sendmail from the base system 
altogether (as recently discussed on developers@), and we will see the port 
failing on bento then, instead of silently not building packages.

Examples are mail/spamass-milter, mail/sccmilter, mail/sentinel,
mail/milter-sender and mail/kavmilter.

Most ports use IGNORE when they find the wrong perl version, but 
mail/maildirsync uses BROKEN.

OTOH BROKEN is used when they don't compile on a certain platform, even though 
there are ONLY_FOR_ARCHS and NOT_FOR_ARCHS, which imply IGNORE.

The FreeBSD Porter's Handbook is not excessively clear about that point:
  <http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/porters-handbook/dads-broken.html>

- "If in doubt, do use IGNORE ..."

bsd.port.mk says:

- IGNORE [...] should be used sparingly.

So maybe we can get a clarification on this and add this to the porter's 
handbook?

-Oliver