ptlib build failure - breaks pwlib - hence also asterisk - opal - & openh323

[Peter Jeremy]

On 2010-Sep-23 12:22:51 -0400, Jerry <freebsd-ports.user at seibercom.net> wrote:
>A few months ago, after upgrading to version 8/amd64 and installing
>OpenSSL from ports, I had several ports bomb out when I attempted to
>build them.  I filed PR's against them and contacted the maintainers. It
>appeared that the majority of these port maintainers were not even aware
>that their port would not build in the presents of OpenSSL when it was
>installed via the ports tree. In any case, I was able to get them to
>fix their ports to build correctly.

So it sounds like everything worked as expected.  I fail to see any
deficiency in the way things worked.

>What amazed me is that this is such a common occurrence that it should
>have been contemplated when the port was released.

Why do you think that?  It's quite likely that the port maintainers
didn't install OpenSSL from ports - I know I don't.

> Perhaps the Porters
>Handbook should list ports that have a corresponding base system
>counterpart; thereby, alerting the maintainer that he/she should test
>against both versions to insure full compatibility.

I disagree.  I'd be surprised if any part of the base system _didn't_
have one or more corresponding equivalents in ports.  As well as
OpenSSL, there are 5 versions of gcc (and probably a half-dozen other
C compilers), binutils, 5 versions of bind (and several other DNS
implementations that presumably also implement resolver libraries), 3
Kerberos variants, 2-4 versions of ncurses, readline, etc.  Expecting
a ports maintainer to check that their port works with all of these on
3 different FreeBSD branches and about 5 different architectures is
completely unrealistic.

IMHO, the expectations on a port maintainer are that they verify that
the port works as expected in their environments (where any unusual
configurations are listed in the port dependencies) and at least
builds on all other supported branches/architectures (via tinderbox or
similar).  Any issues beyond that realistically need to be dealt with
on a case-by-case basis.

-- 
Peter Jeremy
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/attachments/20100924/1708039d/attachment.pgp