ports/78687: Warning cleanups for graphics/URT port

Simon Barner barner at FreeBSD.org
Sat Mar 12 02:23:04 PST 2005

Pedro F. Giffuni wrote:
> > IMHO these kinds of patches do not belong into the ports collection in
> > the first place. While they are correct, and reduce the number of
> > compiler warnings and improve the general quality of the code, they are
> > not necessary to make the software run on FreeBSD.
> > 
> Actually if someone wants to build the BRLCAD fb support some of them will be
> necessary.

Okay, although you said that in the PR, I somehow did not noticed that.

> The idea is, also, that if gcc (or ICC or TenDRA) is stricter in the
> future it will not break URT (it has happened before), or at least that it will
> not make be a nightmare to fix it again.
> > Is there any chance to have those changes integrated upstream, i.e. by
> > the authors of URT?
> >
> No, URT is not actively maintained anymore. It is part of BRLCAD, but I've been
> trying to convince them to un-bundle it so we that we can use our port. I hope
> they also unbundle Tcl, Tk, itcl, iTk, and iwidgets it's very bulky package
> (the last three need updating in our ports tree too).

Okay, then it's a totaly different situation -- if URT is not actively
maintained anymore, why not integrate fixes that are floating around in
mailing lists (like that IRIX patch you mentioned in the PR) into the
ports collection?

> > If that's not the case (because the software is abandoned), or the do
> > not plan a new release within a reasonable timeframe, I'd prefer to have
> > those patches bundled in one file, say patch-FIX-WARNINGS, so that our
> > repository is not clobbered with a dozend of small, non-FreeBSD specific
> > patches.
> > 
> Something like this happened with Spice and XView.. it was a mess to break up
> the patches afterwards to make sure we were not patching a file twice or in
> conflicting ways. I did the cleaning of those ports because I had some
> responsability in that happening, but I won't do the same mistake again for
> URT.

I personally also dislike the approach of having a patch that touches
multiple files (patch-aa, patch-ab, ...), but I though it would conform
better to the port collection's standards this time. But if noone has
objections, and you have experience in these things, I will of course
honour your efforts and commit the patches as single files!

> > So, to sum this up: I really appreciate your work very much, but IMO the
> > ports collection is not the best place to store your patches.
> > 
> Admitedly I didn't explain this very well: The patch contains cleanups and some
> minor fixes, but it also paves the way for building-in new functionality so
> that I can avoid re-building URT with BRLCAD.

Which is great! Let's see whether they unbundle tcl/tk from the package,
such that it can be installed in a much more sane way.

> > Perhaps someone else from the ports@ list can share her/his opinion with
> > us?
> > 
> I'm surely glad to receive feedback, and if someone else wants to maintain URT
> I'll be glad to let him/her know my requirements.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/attachments/20050312/ae6ac9a3/attachment.bin

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list