Ports marked as IGNORE - (cups-pdf) & (urlview) why - how long?

David Southwell david at vizion2000.net
Tue Dec 22 22:25:30 UTC 2009

> > Looks like all the PR's were not in place before the test was run on
> > pointyhat.
> pointyhat doesn't have anything to do with PRs.  It runs based on what
> is checked into CVS when its runs start.  How would it be able to do
> otherwise?  The ports PR count is currently 998.  How is a computer
> program going to know which ones are relevant or correct?
> > I deduced from the information on my system that the error was more
> > likely due to a false positive for failure by the testing procedure
> > rather than due to an inherent failure in the code.
> build error != install error.  If you look at the two error logs, you'll
> see that those are install errors (files required to be installed not
> installed; files required to be deinstalled not being deinstalled).
> Ports that do not allow a clean install/deinstall cycle are broken,
> whether they compile or not.
> mcl
Yes I agree BUT it is suggested that the reason that there was not a clean 
install/deinstall cycle was because the pointyhat test may have been done 
without the benefit of PR ports 141375. Here is Mathew Seaman's take on it:

"Looks like the problem would have been fixed in PR ports/141375, which 
the cups-base port to create the directory in question.  As that fix was 
on the 12th at 19:39 and the last pointyhat test on cups-pdf appears to have 
on the same day at 20:57 I reckon pointyhat just missed getting the fix for at
least one of its test cases by about >< that much."

What we need now is another test on pointyhat to see whether his speculation 
is accurate. It seems highly probable to me.

Time will tell


More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list