Flaw in print/acroread7 (was: Re: [ru@FreeBSD.org: [patch] mixed i386/amd64 ports semi-broken])

[Kris Kennaway]

On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 05:02:39AM +0100, Jean-Yves Lefort wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 22:17:19 -0500
> Kris Kennaway <kris at obsecurity.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 04:08:47AM +0100, Jean-Yves Lefort wrote:
> > > On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 22:10:19 +0100
> > > Alexander Leidinger <Alexander at Leidinger.net> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 20:52:40 +0200
> > > > Ruslan Ermilov <ru at freebsd.org> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > I hit this problem attempting to install print/acroread7 on amd64.
> > > > > It depends on emulators/linux_base-8, which rewrites ${ARCH} from
> > > > > "amd64" to "i386".  Unfortunately, when linux_base-8 is processed
> > > > > in a submake, e.g., when I run "make fetch-recursive" in
> > > > > print/acroread7, no rewrite of ${ARCH} actually happens because
> > > > > bsd.port.mk mistakenly thinks that ${ARCH} can never change, so
> > > > > it's getting passed ARCH already set to "amd64", and as a highest
> > > > > priority command-line type make(1) variable.  This results in
> > > > > ${MD5_FILE} improperly set to distinfo.amd64 which doesn't exist.
> > > > > Here's a fix:
> > > > > 
> > > > > %%%
> > > > > Index: bsd.port.mk
> > > > 
> > > > For this particular problem: acroread7 should set ARCH like every other
> > > > linux port does (better: every other tested linux port should do) to
> > > > i386. But there are more flaws in Trevor's ports and I decided to let
> > > > other people "handle" it (e.g. mezz has some patches for acroread7
> > > > which would let the port behave more to the rules of the porters
> > > > handbook).
> > > 
> > > Any reason to not consider (cluster test) Ruslan's solution?
> > 
> > Before I put it on the cluster I'd want reasonable evidence that the
> > patch isn't going to break more ports than it fixes (which seems
> > likely to me).
> 
> # Get the architecture
> .if !defined(ARCH)
> ARCH!=  ${UNAME} -p
> .endif

I don't see your point.  The line Ruslan is removing clearly must do
something, otherwise it can't "fix" the affected ports.  If it does
something, it needs to be shown that it doesn't do something bad.

Kris
-------------- 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/20060130/6d1ee36d/attachment.bin